Vitamin Web Resource

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

User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

I kind of support the link for another reason - it lets visitors know that standards do actually exist, and are measurable... Nothing wrong with informing your audience. It might be hard to maintain, but typically the maintenance errors tend to small stuff IMO.
User avatar
Weirdan
Moderator
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 6:13 pm
Location: Odessa, Ukraine

Post by Weirdan »

jayshields wrote:Maybe cocky was a strong word. Trying not to blow it out of proportion, it's like telling someone you're going to win a race, and then losing it, or telling someone you've already won the race, but you didn't. Why not just let them find out who won the race themselves if they're so interested?
Perhaps it's like telling someone you'd like to win a race, and when your fans notice you don't warm up they would tell you. Method to keep yourself in shape via negative feedback.
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

jayshields wrote:Why not just take the link off and still try to keep it compliant. Personally, I think the links are cocky, and without the website being valid I think it's a bit embarrassing.
The difference between cocky and confident is whether you can actually do what you are bragging about being able to do. :)

So yes, it is cocky, because in many cases they aren't managing to keep it compliant.

The buttons are intended to show that you've made an investment in making your page compliant. Much like security, its not a checklist item - its a process that continues after you finish your design. Unfortunately, with dynamic content, ads, includes from other (web)services, and so on, its extremely challenging to ensure that it will remain compliant.

Point being, if everyone followed your rule ("dont use the buttons unless you can guarantee you will stay valid"), the already small number of sites using the buttons would be *extremely* small. Me, I'm very happy to see sites with the button - even if they don't validate. Why? Because I know if I send them an email saying "Hey, you have a few validation errors on this page", they are probably interested and willing to fix them.

Thats a statement thats worth far more to me than "This site guaranteed to always be compliant", which would be even MORE arrogant and cocky.
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

jayshields wrote:Can I just take this thread slightly off-topic (because I found webstandards.org through thinkvitamin.org) by saying why do websites go out of their way to give a standards compliancy link when they aren't valid?

http://www.webstandards.org is one.
http://www.everah.com is two I've seen just today.

Why not just take the link off and still try to keep it compliant. Personally, I think the links are cocky, and without the website being valid I think it's a bit embarrassing.
I HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT! OH MAN IT'S ON NOW!

Just kidding. Notariety, good or bad, is a means by which to attract attention, I suppose. In my defense:
1) I actually do not make a claim to compliance on my main web site home page. I know it is not compliant. I have had no time to get my main layout in the same form as my blog (which I do claim is compliant, though I am finding out now that some of my blog content has killed my compliance).
2) If there is ever a possibility that my sites will not be compliant, I won't add the compliance statement. However, when the layout (XHTML, CSS, etc) is compliant, I will certainly be the first to toot my own horn.
3) If a compliant layout gets thrashed by non-comliant content, then I will fix the content (as is the case now with my blog, which I am fixing even as I write this post).

Anyhow, thanks for the attention to my website. But please, if possible, understand that I do not, in any way, make a claim to compliance on my home page. I do on my blog, and I am currently fixing non-compliance issues.

EDIT | Compliancy issues have been resolved. Prove it at http://www.everah.com/news/
User avatar
jayshields
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:11 pm
Location: Leeds/Manchester, England

Post by jayshields »

Good job on fixing the compliancy issues, and :lol: @ my username on your website front page.
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

jayshields wrote:Good job on fixing the compliancy issues, and :lol: @ my username on your website front page.
Seemed only fair...
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

Nice website by the way :)
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

Thanks. That was a project, and I am in the middle of getting my entire site into that theme. It's pretty clean, I suppose. And it uses nothing but CSS for the layout, which I truly love.

But thanks for the compliment.
Post Reply