Web Standards Lie?

Read these articles right quick:

http://www.killersites.com/blog/2005/silly-nerds-the-web-standards-are-for-browsers/
http://www.killersites.com/blog/2005/web-standards-myths-debunked/
http://www.killersites.com/blog/2005/web-standards-theory-v-practicality

Now...answer me this: Does this guy bring up any valid points? Or does he simply not "get it"? Is the use of current web standards such a different philosophy that guys like this simply can’t seem to bring themselves to the same level of thought as the rest of us that do "get it"? Or is it just me? I’d really like to know because I’m very close to getting into a "smackdown" with a developer right now that doesn’t follow my line of thought on the use of standards.

So...what does everyone else think of the arguments presented in these articles? Love to hear some feedback!

Jeff

If it’s important for your site to perform well in search with less effort, then standards are an absolute must.

If you want to avoid the inevitable problems with non-sighted visitors at some point in the future, then again, it’s a must (companies have been sued and lost over this in other countries).

If you have a busy site and want to lower bandwidth requirements, I can think of no better way. And it’s not all images either. I did a version of osCommerce years ago that used the same exact visuals and yet the pages were 30-40% smaller across the board.

If you want a site that can be updated completely from a single location (the CSS file), no other way works as easily or as well when used in conjunction with a CMF like MODx.

You can come up with a million arguments for it, and not a heck of a lot of sound arguments against it that hold any real water. It’s not more expensive and the only excuse to argue "against" it is that they just flat don’t get it and are "ostriching" while the rest of the world sails by.

Analogy: the buggy whip manufacturers at the turn of the century who refused to change their business because there’s always going to be horse carriages, right? ... Who the hell needs those newfangled awe-toh-moe-biles.

Web standards are an inevitable fact; get on board or get out.

And last I heard, the guy paying the bill gets the final word, no?

I don’t agree with this statement

"The Web Standards are a good thing since it can make life easier for web designers"

BUT .. it’s a very good way to make a lot of money, compliance work is all value added business, like tableless css codes you can charge 10 times the price a person is charging for tables, and get away with it

This is wrongly worded as well:-

"In most cases, the major cause for bloated pages (in terms of KB’s,) are a bad use of images and Flash, not the mark up code."

’Bloat’ is commonly referred to as code ’bloat’ - here he’s attempting to twist the word ’bloat’ to include the number of images a site uses. Everyone knows images are optional, bloated code is if the coders useless or using Frontpage.

The following statement may be true,

"Bandwidth is so cheap these days, that probably 99.99% of websites use but a small fraction of their allotted limits."

But when you’ve got a big ass site using 500mb bandwidth a day the savings are critical.

And this statement

"We now live in the age of broadband where people download DVD quality movies - will an extra 20k on a web page make a practical difference?"

Yes, 20k makes a big difference .. besides, who wants to use ’more’ when they can employ coding options that’ll save them bandwidth - one day their site might be busy, and most people like to believe that

This is bull$hit word play

"The forward compatibility argument implies that if you have an ‘old style’ website that one day the browser makers will suddenly stop supporting them."

Again, everyone know’s forward compatibility is a device related issue, not just exclusive to browsers.

I stopped reading after that, he’s obviously attempting to draw debate on issues that are either invalid, or "opinion" based ... it’s a good way to get attention, like here - it’s obviously made you think I suggest you go with your own instincts and common sense, and if client’s want standards compliant - then why not give it to them? afterall ... they’re paying for it

http://adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000266.php

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/csstalking/

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/seo

Jeff,

I would agree with his statement "Table sites can be made cheaper and faster", if and only if, the developer doesn’t know CSS. So to be efficient, you would have to learn CSS. (In the same case, it’s faster and easier to build a static website instead of using MODx - if you don’t know or take the time to learn MODx or another CMS/CMF).

But, once you know the standards, it doesn’t take longer- I think it’s faster. (In the same vein as- once you know MODx, it’s a better way to develop).

And I agree with two main arguments A List Apart made:
1. Search Engine Friendly - as this is what every client asks about.
2. It’s cheaper for maintenance - it’s cheaper in the long run.

Also - standards for the disabled. One guy on mamboguru.com has the signature - "A community that excludes even one person is not a community" (or something like that). It’s not that hard to learn the standards, and once you have them (like knowing MODx), you have them in your arsenal.

PS - I am also working with a phenomenal graphic designer that doesn’t know these things. He told me my site didn’t look good on Mac IE 4. I agreed, told him the reasons, and he was ok with that.

PPS - I am not a standards zealot BTW.
Chuck

Although I am an adamant supporter of web standards, and adhere to them rigidly in my designs, I think it should be a choice left to the designer or client on how the site will be coded. Articles like those Susan posted offer insigtful tips into the benefits of adhering to standards. Mr. Mischook’s article seems to cram his own (at times misinformed) opinions down the throats of his readers as much as he claims web standard zealots are doing to him.

I suppose sometimes it is better to keep your dumb-ass, uninformed propoganda under the guise of "opinion" to yourself? Or perhaps we should all take up our part to set the web back as far as possible and forget about people with disabilities! Why would Mr. Mischook want to create a page that anyone (even folks who require screen readers, or don’t have access to contemporary hardware/software) could have access to? They probably wouldn’t even agree with his backwoods-hillbilly vision of the web anyway.

-sD-

Quote from: rthrash at Jul 12, 2006, 09:01 PM

Web standards are an inevitable fact; get on board or get out. And last I heard, the guy paying the bill gets the final word, no?

I have read all reactions and agree to most of what has been said (but that’s not surprising, given that MODx users are more probably than not standards-aware).

About that last bit Ryan, it’s obvious to us but not always (if ever) to the guy who pays the bills...

In France, we are behind the US as far as web standards awareness is concerned, and most decision makers don’t know squat about it (and initially don’t care one bit).

Of course, there are a lot of arguments to convince them that, technicalities not withstanding, it’s financially beneficial to use standards :
- less bandwith
- less maintenance cost
- better SEO
... etc

I wouldn’t count on the guy who pays the bill to make the difference... sometimes you have to fight your way time and again to have it go into their heads...

Mainly, this is the consequence of web standards not being as tangible as eye candy or the likes... they don’t actually SEE the benefits, though they understand them they often have to be reminded of the benefits (and drawbacks of not going the standards way...).

I have to compete with a lot of "eye candy proficient" agencies who make extensive use of Flash (in France, 75% of the market), you make cases and win some contracts but some client just can’t be convinced (or I am not convincing enough...). They want "beep and blink" (as I call it) no matter what study you show, arguments you make...

Jeff’s company is the guy paying the bill. Jeff knows and understands, though.

Yeah sure, but that’s the best case scenario

I was refering to what I encounter on a daily basis, I sometimes feel like an evangelist !

Indeed. I tend to ignore "web standards" in discussions and instead focus on the benefits of less maintenance headaches, site responsiveness improvements, and easier results with SEO.