Companies like http://www[dot]digiknow.com manage to continually sell non valid websites?

This company does upwards of 4 million a year in business yet, just about every website I've seen they have designed is non-valid template based garbage.

??? A good snake oil salesman?

Firefox and IE aren't 100% standards compliant anyway. Google fails as well. Think that is bad for their business? Making sure a site works the way it should seems more important to me then wasting time making sure every image tag has an alt attribute.

I couldn't disagree more really. Standards-based website will last.

...wasting time making sure every image tag has an alt attribute.

What if you can't see the image? ALTs are there for a reason. And it doesn't take more time to design for standards, so why shouldn't you?

I'm with Syd and Flash, web standards are NOT a waste of time at all.

Ignoring the alt attribute images means you're just shooting the bird to anyone who can't SEE the image, be it a physical disability or a technical one. Accessibility IS important, and web standards go a long way to promote accessibility.

Originally Posted by LadynRed

I'm with Syd and Flash, web standards are NOT a waste of time at all.

Ignoring the alt attribute images means you're just shooting the bird to anyone who can't SEE the image, be it a physical disability or a technical one. Accessibility IS important, and web standards go a long way to promote accessibility.

Not really. Screen readers don't follow those standards completely either. Each reader acts differently. Not only that having a standards compliant site doesn't mean it is accessible to those users. Having "layout" alt tags is just as bad as having no alt tags at all (and many sites who are compliant do just that). A well designed non-compliant site is better than a poorly designed compliant one (such as using skip to content for screen readers). At the moment browsers, screen readers, etc. just don't follow standards enough to have any need to even waste the time. Do you really think those web 2.0 sites are accessible to screen readers? Jaws stalls on those instantly. It doesn't notice DOM changes at all. I feel usability improvements for the majority of my potential visitors is better than trying to accommodate a select few. Yes, I try to follow standards as much as I can but really no one would even notice that I spent those extra hours putting it through validators and writing alt tags to all my images. The majority of users don't even care as long as they can browse without any problem.

This site fails css validation. Does that mean it is a poorly designed site? (1 error and 120 warnings)

Originally Posted by Demexii

Not really. Screen readers don't follow those standards completely either. Each reader acts differently. Not only that having a standards compliant site doesn't mean it is accessible to those users. Having "layout" alt tags is just as bad as having no alt tags at all (and many sites who are compliant do just that). A well designed non-compliant site is better than a poorly designed compliant one (such as using skip to content for screen readers). At the moment browsers, screen readers, etc. just don't follow standards enough to have any need to even waste the time. Do you really think those web 2.0 sites are accessible to screen readers? Jaws stalls on those instantly. It doesn't notice DOM changes at all. I feel usability improvements for the majority of my potential visitors is better than trying to accommodate a select few. Yes, I try to follow standards as much as I can but really no one would even notice that I spent those extra hours putting it through validators and writing alt tags to all my images. The majority of users don't even care as long as they can browse without any problem.

This site fails css validation. Does that mean it is a poorly designed site? (1 error and 120 warnings)

Granted, no one is perfect. I can definitely say, "I myself fall short in the glory of w3c..."

In one sentence you disagree about "alt" tags and the next you say "Yes, I try to follow standards as much as I can" ???

Can you please offer me some documentation to backing your claims that alt tags and web standards don't help handicapped individuals? I have read plenty of documentation convincing me otherwise.

I speak only for myself here however, if someone wants to appose the majority, I like to at least read a little from their information source to better help me understand their reasoning. Perhaps then, one might consider the source credible.

My post was not to necessarily discredit that company rather help myself better understand why web standards importance continues to grow, and companies continue to make millions of dollars doing just the opposite?

Even if this company hadn't adhered to standards in the past, the fact that a potential customer might become educated of standards mid design, would be enough for me to make sure that I'm following them just to prevent future questioning down the road... wouldn't you?

Does any of this make sense?

Perhaps someone could also explain why MSN.com, the very company responsible for generating the majority (in my opinion) of poor, sloppy code (Microsoft FP) has miraculously decided to become 100% compliant themselves?

Ironic?

Originally Posted by Sydpix

Granted, no one is perfect. I can definitely say I myself fall short in the glory of w3c...

In one sentance you disagree about "alt" tags and the next you say "Yes, I try to follow standards as much as I can" ???

Can you please offer me some documentation to backup your claims that alt tags and web standards don't help handicapped individuals?

There is plenty of documentation convincing me that standards ARE in the designers best interest.

I speak only for myself here however, if someone wants to appose the majority, I like to at least read a little about were they get their information to better help me understand their reasoning. Perhaps then, one might consider the source reliable.

My post is not to discredit that company but, better understand myself how web standards importance continues to grow, how companies continue to make millions of dollars being the opposite?

Even if this company hadn't adhered to standards in the past, the fact that a potential customer might become educated of standards mid design, would be enough for me to make sure that I'm following them just to prevent future questioning down the road... wouldn't you?

Does any of this make sense?

You didn't understand me correctly. I try to follow standards as much as I can but I don't go overboard. I also feel they are a burden that aren't as important as so many people claim. My site does pass all the tests at the moment but in the future I doubt I will be so lucky (I have 1 image in my template right now). The site isn't big right now and I can handle it better. Once I have more dynamic pages changing on the fly I doubt I can keep it valid. And Im not going to try. Alt tags are just one spot that I would need to waste more of my time to keep it valid with little overall gain.

Yes, standards does help them. But at what cost? They still stumble on valid code. And is the amount of time I put in worth the them having better access? Remember, they can still access the site if it isn't valid. Being valid just makes it easier.

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/aja...enreaders-work
Article on how ajax and screen readers don't play nicely with each other. Of course you can degrade all your javascript but unless your a giant site that is a daunting task for few gains.

http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1188895731&count=1
A nice post about how Jaws really works and how terrible it is even with good, valid code.

...forget longdesc or even alt, or even markup of any kind, just make sure you're using full punctuation! And that's just one example. Browsing the Web with JAWS is a horrifying experience not because of the poor state of the Web, which is admittedly very poor indeed from the point of view of semantic and accessible markup, but because of the terrifyingly poor state of the screen reader software...

And that was with JAWS the leading screen reader.

I could go on (I have a list of sites that discuss this as I did a CS paper on usability and had a section on accessibility).

So I'm forced to degrade my javascript and waste time (not to mention filesize) with additional attributes and standards that 99% of my users will never even notice? I don't see it as something worth my while. Maybe if I was running a site that catered to outdated users or blind people I would. But I just don't have the time.

And overall I can add a few touches that would make the site more usable to screen readers and still have invalid code. And I'm sure they would be happier that way.

If you really want to make your Web pages more readable to blind users, forget longdesc or even alt, or even markup of any kind, just make sure you're using full punctuation! And that's just one example.

This is a general rant about punctuation and grammar. I think the user was using "long description" as an overexaggeration not something to take literally but to stress more emphasis on learning grammar and punctuation.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, I think the general idea is to learn to code the right way initially, this way at least your ahead of the game.

If you learn to work smart, not hard, the "daunting task" of adding "alt" tags, really isn't a burden but more natural instinct.

As far as javascript goes, I have seen cases were once I validated a few of the missing "alt" tags or unclosed elements, suddenly, my javascript validated as well.

Has anyone else seen this?

And just to be picky - THERE IS NO ALT TAG !!! It's an attribute