Web Designers - Do you validate for W3C

[pcproblems]

Hi All,

i had this conversation over the weekend and wondered what the consensus is about making sure that a website validates for W3C html and css.

I'm not a designer but have always made sure that any site that I build validates. Wordpress seems a little tricky but I've managed it with that as well..

I'm also conscious about people who's sight may not be so great so have tried for WCAG 2.0 (Website Content Accessibility Guidelines) as well.

 

[fisicx]

Gave up trying to fully validate sites years ago. It's just not worth the effort.

As long as there are no horrors lurking then the occasional missing closing tag isn't going to make any difference. Certainly not to the users of the website.

WCAG is a bit different but their guidelines are very woolly. Adding background to every style for example is pointless if you are inheriting styles.

 

[seemly]

Gave up trying to fully validate sites years ago. It's just not worth the effort.

If you are good at what you do, valid code isn't effort - it's second nature.
If it takes you so much time to write valid code that you don't deem it worth your time, then I dread to think what your thoughts are on semantics and progressive enhancement are.

As long as there are no horrors lurking then the occasional missing closing tag isn't going to make any difference. Certainly not to the users of the website.

Very sloppy and unprofessional though, eh?
I assume your clients are paying for a professional service at a professional premium...

An unclosed tag can have all sorts of undesirable effects in internet explorer (any version), potentially devastating the usability of a website for users, potentially destroying your clients business for the sake of your sloppy code.

WCAG is a bit different but their guidelines are very woolly. Adding background to every style for example is pointless if you are inheriting styles.

Lol, "woolly"...
It's more down to common sense than anything else and making sure that no user is exempt from any content you are displaying on screen.

 

[fisicx]

If you are good at what you do, valid code isn't effort - it's second nature.

If you are using a CMS you have very little control over the core code.

The bit I write might validate, I have no control over the bit the CMS developers produce.

 

[seemly]

If you are using a CMS you have very little control over the core code.

The bit I write might validate, I have no control over the bit the CMS developers produce.

Well, that puts a completely different and more positive spin on what you originally wrote.
For those that don't know about our industry your original post didn't come across very well, did it?

Never under-sell yourself!

 

[Deleted member 27344]

If you are using a CMS you have very little control over the core code.

The bit I write might validate, I have no control over the bit the CMS developers produce.

Err ... what?
If you're using the right CMS then you'll have 100% control over the rendered html.

If you mean the core functions, then, obviously, it's best not to touch those but if there's something wrong with the core, the best thing to do is report it, with a fix if possible.

As for validating - It's not the 'web designers' job to validate any code, that's the developers job.
Do I validate 100%? Not every time but I do use validation tools as a guide and to help fix any issues I might just not be seeing.

As has been mentioned, some of the reported 'errors' are simply not to be worried about.

 

Very sloppy and unprofessional though, eh?

I don't want to be good or professional.:|

I want to be rich.

 

[terryuk]

Is that an excuse to go around in my shorts all day.. I wish :redface:

 

[pcproblems]

Well that was fun !

Thankyou for your thoughts. I think that WCAG will become more important in the years to come, it seems strong down under at the mo, according to a friend who specializes in it.
I also seem to remember that the RNIB took an airline to court over website usability problems.

 

[123Simples]

Obviously it's better to try and validate your web pages with good coding! Having said that there are times (not often I hasten to add) when try as hard as you might, something on the page just will not validate according to W3C - the most important thing though is achieving a cross browser capability - I know I have done sites that look great in Firefox, but then come unstuck when viewing them in that bad awful Internet Explorer

Then I go back in and make that bit work for IE
There is no excuse however for sloppy coding or unclosed tags - unless of course you have been staring at coding for days on end and then I dare anyone to be perfect!

 

[Cyborg Industries]

while I aim to get sites to validate (and in the majority of cases do) and write good code, I find it more important to ensure it is cross browser compatible. I spend a lot more time trying to get that extra padding out of Internet Explorer than I do to get the green tick from w3c.

I'm mainly talking about things like rel in html5 is a bit tricky when using some cms, or jquery plugins and extra original-data tags and such are a bit of a pain.

 

[oppa]

I always check my site, but if it works properly on Firefox, Chrome and Opera I don't fix errors.

 

[ITsoldUK]

I always check my site, but if it works properly on Firefox, Chrome and Opera I don't fix errors.

So you check it works on Opera with 2.1% of the market BUT ignore IE with 16.4% of the market???

Source

 

[optik]

Put some big name sites through the validator, see the hundreds of errors, then relax.

You should be testing your sites in browsers not a validator.

 

[oppa]

So you check it works on Opera with 2.1% of the market BUT ignore IE with 16.4% of the market???

I forgot to type IE, sorry. I mean that I don't care about browsers like Netscape and other with 0,x% of the market