Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:34 am
by Chris Corbyn
onion2k wrote:
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:XHTML compliance is important for a variety of reasons - not least consistency.
If you believe that consistancy is really important, why are you serving XHTML using the "text/html" MIME type on http://www.quantum-star.com/ ?

That's not very consistant .. and it breaks the HTTP standard.

:wink:
Internet Explorer forces a download when you use the correct mime-type :x Sucks :(

Also not really got a lot to do with "HTTP". That's just a protocol.

Re: Slashdot

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:49 am
by Grim...
Roja wrote:Legally blind users are making up as much as 5% of the browsing public on some major sites.
Damn those illegal blind, who live on the WRONG SIDE OF THE EYE-GLASS LAW!

Sorry. It's been a long (couple of) day(s).

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:56 am
by Grim...
Question: Is there a text-based browser for XP? Google is letting me right down :(

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:01 am
by feyd
http://lynx.browser.org/

first result for "lynx browser" :P

Re: Slashdot

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:09 am
by alex.barylski
Roja wrote:
Hockey wrote:Man...your really stuck on HTML/XHTML compliance aren't you? :P
Yes, I am extremely vigilent about compliance. Its not just important, its the bare minimum that anyone creating a webpage should do.
Hockey wrote:As long as everything looks good and renders the same in IE and FF I'm happy as are most of my visitors...sure I have plenty of tables, but it's fairly optimized :)
I wouldn't be so confident about who "most of my visitors" are, and whether your site works for them.

First, you have visually impared users - like me - who prefer compliant code so I can either increase the font size (yay liquid layouts), or use user javascript to allow me to. Of course, I'm not blind, so I have some flexibility. Legally blind users are making up as much as 5% of the browsing public on some major sites.

Next, you have mobile browsers. Cellphones are the primary browser for most people in the pacific region (China, Japan, etc). Mobile browsers do *far* better with valid code, and render faster. They can be as high as 8% of the user base.

Don't leave out dialup users, a group that deeply benefits from compliant code, because it renders faster, it transmits faster, and it caches (css) subtantially better. Those are no trivial improvements, and definitely make users happy. Considering that over 33% of viewers haven't made it to broadband, even in the United States, thats no trivial group.

Add them all up, and you've got the potential for alienating or degrading the experience for as much as half of your viewers. Worse, each of those groups are hard to detect. Visually impared users don't have a user agent string that says "BlindDude". Mobile browsers often spoof non-mobile browser user agent strings. Dialup users look like broadband users.

But ignore *all* of that, and use Links (text-based browser) as your primary browser for a day. Thats a very close emulation of how the blind see the web. After a day, you will be disgusted at just how many sites are flat out unusable because of their design choices - many of which ignore standards that have been around almost a decade.

In a nutshell, you don't know the majority of your users, you don't know their pain, and your flippant dismissal shows a lack of respect for people that are different than you. But hey, if you want to brush off that portion of your audience, so you can thumb your nose at simple standards that are trivial to comply with, feel free. It just shows exactly where your priorities are, so the rest of the world can make a similar value judgement about you and your design.

HTML compliance is about doing things the right way, to enable the largest possible audience access to your work. It shows that you care about professionalism, and about embracing the best practices on the net today.

Any professional that chooses not to do so isn't very professional.
Whoa 8O

Easy, it was meant to be a joke...a humorous compliment even. :wink:

Never see that Seinfeld episode? Geeesh...

And if you must know, I do know almost exactly who my visitors are and will be...it's called vertical market advertising. People in the profession to which I advertise are very likely NOT handicapped in any way, I know this by virtue of their business.

Truth be told, you said it best with "the bare minimum that anyone creating a webpage should do"...

I seldomly create web pages, I create web applications...I'm not a huge fan of design and usually outsource that to a professional designer.

My point being that web applciations are again, not generally for mass or public audience...most apps I have developed have been used in house, with ZERO complaint about compliance from any client.

I'm not down playing the importance of compliance, believe me, listening to you, I've begun to consider it's importance, because there will come a day when it will be mandatory, but that day is quite a ways off you realize?

The proliferation of poorly designed sites (compliance wise anyways) far out weighs the compliant web sites, so while some browsers may support compliance, it's rediculous to think IE or FF will stop working next year on anything BUT compliant web sites.

I consider myself a professional and a forward thinker to boot, but I have other more important things on my agenda (like selling features) than making everything compliant, just to appease an audience I generally don't have.

I will get there, it's just not priority number one.

Cheers :)

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:25 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
It's like opening a shop without access ramps. Or publishing a book without permitting a braille version. Or opening a Cinema without hearing aid support systems.

When you ignore one segment of a market, they'll ignore you. There is also an argument (and in some places actual laws) about application useability by people with disabilities such as blindness or poor eyesight.

I'm not saying everything you stated is wrong by any means - just that the attitude ignores a very common and real problem that is understated everywhere you see web app useability articles. Take a case I had a few months ago. I opened my forums for the currently non-compliant website ;), and promptly received two PM's complaining about the inability to access several sections of my issue tracker - namely the account signup forms. Reason? The app enabled CAPTCHAs by default - which of course anyone with sight issues will quickly tell you is a blight on the internet.

Even the blind play web games...they even submit bug reports.

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:47 pm
by Gambler
Do you read Slashdot?
Not anymore.

Re: Slashdot

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:03 pm
by Roja
Hockey wrote: Whoa 8O

Easy, it was meant to be a joke...a humorous compliment even. :wink:
Sorry, I didn't get that from the message. Unfortunately, online communications miss so much context its not funny.

However, its one of those things that if I had known that, it would have changed the tone, but not the fact that I responded. Accessibility to most people is a punchline. For others, its a serious impediment to equal access. Being on the cusp of both worlds, the impact justifies taking it very seriously - not joking about it.
Hockey wrote:Never see that Seinfeld episode? Geeesh...
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Hockey wrote:And if you must know, I do know almost exactly who my visitors are and will be...
Sorry, I don't at all accept that. In fact, that statement in Vegas would give "Good odds" for gamblers betting against you. :)
Hockey wrote:it's called vertical market advertising. People in the profession to which I advertise are very likely NOT handicapped in any way, I know this by virtue of their business.
Funny story that might help. One day in New York City, on a business trip, I ended up with a serious injury to my foot. I had to use a wheelchair for an entire day - something I've never had to do. In the hospital, which you would think would be the most accessible type of building out there, I rolled out of the ER and headed to a specialist wing.

The specialist wing was on the third floor. I honestly headed for a staircase without thinking about it. Once I realized my mistake, I asked where the nearest elevator was. Turns out it was on *the other side of the building*, which took 10 minutes of wheeling to get to.

I wasn't handicapped. I wasn't the typical wheelchair user. I wasn't shut out of accesibility.

But those ten minutes taught me that arrogant statements like "I KNOW my audience is not handicapped in ANY way" is just wrong. People get injured every day. Valuable, productive members of society lose their site every day - and can keep doing their jobs, as long as we make choices (like building accessible sites) that don't prevent them from doing so.

Imagine a 20 year veteran in advertising, bringing in millions of dollars in contracts a day, losing his sight to cataracts and being told that he can't do his job any more because their customer management system isn't accessible. That won't fly in the real world, and neither does your argument.

You do NOT know that people in your market are not impacted by your choices. Thats why we have the American Disabilities Act. People do not have to speak up to tell you when you prevent them from using your creation. You, as a professional, should not ACTIVELY develop code that does so - no matter how sure you think you are that "No one like that comes here". They do, and you don't even know it.
Hockey wrote:I seldomly create web pages, I create web applications...I'm not a huge fan of design and usually outsource that to a professional designer.
Web applications are even more important. An application by definition is enabling a user by giving them functionality. By designing one that actively excludes users, you are discriminating against them. Its black-and-white simple.
Hockey wrote:My point being that web applciations are again, not generally for mass or public audience...most apps I have developed have been used in house, with ZERO complaint about compliance from any client.
Many blacks "didn't complain" about getting on the back of the bus.

Until one did. Silence is not compliance. It is also not at all total satisfaction.
Hockey wrote:I'm not down playing the importance of compliance, believe me, listening to you, I've begun to consider it's importance, because there will come a day when it will be mandatory, but that day is quite a ways off you realize?
On the contrary, its here, and its very real for a large percentage of web pages. Target is being sued because their site isn't accessible - for MILLIONS.

Whether it has become an issue for your specific industry is a legal issue, and I am not a lawyer. However, it is definitely not "a ways off".
Hockey wrote:The proliferation of poorly designed sites (compliance wise anyways) far out weighs the compliant web sites, so while some browsers may support compliance, it's rediculous to think IE or FF will stop working next year on anything BUT compliant web sites.
Whether two browsers will *display* a webpage has nothing to do with this discussion. Further, that ignores existing browsers that ALREADY do not work with anything but compliant web sites. Most mobile phones already do not display non-compliant code correctly. Its already here. Not future tense.

You are focusing on "Majority rules" arguments. "As long as the majority of browsers still show me what *I* need to see, its okay to ignore the rest". The courts are calling that behavior discrimination.

Further, the proliferation of poor compliance sites is (finally) getting its backlash, as seen by the Target lawsuit. I take great pride that I'm not likely to be included in that backlash.

Re: Slashdot

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:54 pm
by alex.barylski
Sorry, I didn't get that from the message. Unfortunately, online communications miss so much context its not funny.
I agree
Accessibility to most people is a punchline. For others, its a serious impediment to equal access. Being on the cusp of both worlds, the impact justifies taking it very seriously - not joking about it.
Fare enough...

There is nothing wrong with being anal about something IMHO anyways. I'm crazy anal about everything I do in life - it drives most people nuts. However I personally would prefer every professional I deal with to be passionate and anal about what they do (tattoo artists, car mechanics, etc...).

Please understand, that first and foremost I am not JUST a web developer, despite doing it for at least 6-7 years I have been programming in C++ and doing Windows development for even longer - completely out of self interest. Only in the last 3-5 years have I started to bother making a profession out of programming.

Anyways, my point is, as a long time hobbyest I am hard pressed to conform to anyones standards which don't affect me any. Now that I have switched gears and headed in the direction of a professional programmer, standards are becoming more an issue for me, but still there are other things which I consider more important. My clients hardly request cross browser support never mind XHTML compliance.
On the contrary, its here, and its very real for a large percentage of web pages. Target is being sued because their site isn't accessible - for MILLIONS.
Thats not quite what I meant, I meant that browsers backwards support for non-compliant HTML will not go away anytime soon...

As for the Target.com???

Interesting...I wonder who wins, not in the long run, but legal battle...

I can't say I agree 100% with what their doing...but whatever...

On one side, I can see how equal opportunity is important and I believe in it, but on the flip side, whats next?

Ahhhh...I'm totally gonna take this right off the deepend if I keep going...so I'll stop now :roll:

Anyways, as you've done in the past, you may very well have convinced me of the importance on another subject. Next version, I will look more closely into making my application more complaint.

I mean, what the heck, 100% XHTML compliance sounds pretty good to me and makes for good marketing verbage :P

p.s-You realize I expect you to help me when I do convert everything to compliant code??? :P


Cheers :)

Re: Slashdot

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:27 pm
by timvw
Hockey wrote: My clients hardly request cross browser support never mind XHTML compliance.
How many times have you had clients that exactly knew what they wanted? In my experience they hire because you're the expert and are expected to give them the best value for their money.

(Btw, i've been using lynx for a while, but nowadays i usually start http://links.sourceforge.net/. And yes, it's extremely frustrating to browse the web, even when i simply disable flash/java/javascript a lot of sites become absolutely unusable... I don't care about the artist behind a website.. I care about the information...)

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:35 pm
by matthijs
One small addition to this discussion: a valid xhtml badge for a site is not (always) the same as an accessible site. I think that's important to realise.

Re: Slashdot

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:35 pm
by Roja
Hockey wrote:Thats not quite what I meant, I meant that browsers backwards support for non-compliant HTML will not go away anytime soon...
Ah, I did miss that, but as I said, there are already browsers that have - mobile browsers, links, jaws, etc. Less by "Ha, we're getting rid of non-compliance support" rigidity, and more because of technical limitations. Regardless of cause, the effect is painful.
Hockey wrote:As for the Target.com???

Interesting...I wonder who wins, not in the long run, but legal battle...

I can't say I agree 100% with what their doing...but whatever...
As shocking as it may seem, I do actually agree. I think the fact that a lawsuit was needed is tragic, unfortunate, and a testament to just how uncaring the world is.

I sincerely think as soon as that lawsuit was filed that Target should have made the changes, and in return (settlement), the plantiffs should have dropped their claim.

Neither, sadly, is occurring, which to me seems to endorse the need for the lawsuit. Its really not ideal, but if it was, they wouldn't be in court. :(

On one side, I can see how equal opportunity is important and I believe in it, but on the flip side, whats next?
Hockey wrote:p.s-You realize I expect you to help me when I do convert everything to compliant code??? :P
Its one of the topics I usually really enjoy contributing to.

I should note for everyone's benefit (and to cover my butt!) that the game I spend most of my spare time on (Blacknova Traders) is not 100% compliant!

However, the current and upcoming versions have made substantial strides to improve its compliance, and continues to. No one is perfect, myself included, and compliance isn't totally trivial to acheive in massively legacy apps (BNT started almost 6 years ago - back during the php3/php4 mess!).

The important thing is that we care, and we try, and we improve over time. As long as a company/group/developer makes a consistent effort towards those goals, I think thats pretty admirable.

I'm more than happy to help out with HTML compliance issues. I've even had to ask for help now and then, and not ALL my issues have always been solved to my satisfaction. But for the most part, we're making great progress.

If you've joined that team, I'm glad to have you. No one expects perfection overnight.

Unless you are target.com. :)

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:09 pm
by Nathaniel
I used to read every story that came up, sometimes multiple times to catch comments that showed up since I read it last... but I don't have it bookmarked anymore, so I only read it now when I actually have time to read it.

I've noticed some of onion2k's posts on slashdot, before. It was kind of cool to go "oh, neat, he hangs out at devnet!"

- Nathaniel

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:16 pm
by RobertPaul
I read Slashdot for the quality of discussion. I read Digg for the variety of articles.

A lot of Digg fanatics thing Digg is/will be some sort of replacement for Slashdot. Personally I think they both fill a niche, and do it well.

Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:55 am
by John Cartwright
Roja + Hockey: if you want to continue, please make a new thread. You guys are seriously off-topic. :wink: