Design Forums - UK Graphic Design & Web Design Forum

O no, don't take anything I said as an attack at you, it was truly not meant to sound like that, I just disagreed with the link, TBH, doesn't mean I am right by the way, but I thought I would clarify my point, lol.

My apologise if you took some bits personally, that was not my intention, I've just reread it, and I can see how some bits may sound like that, but they are not intended to, if that makes sense.

I can have a bit of a quirky sense of humour at times, my friends tend to get it as they know me, so.......lol.

PS ~ The tattoo font thread, is a great thread, it has given me so much to think about, got any fonts for tats you would like to share?
Let me know on that thread, would love to here any thoughts you have, or anyone's for that matter, with being a designer and all. :-)

Dont worry, Im not one to get offended - Im just trying to avoid the opposite

My hunt continues for my side of the argument!

Cant wait for round 2, may be a long search though.

PS ~ I don't think I have got offended in a long time, me being a loud mouth and all, lol, so don't worry about it, I'm not lol.

Hey, thought I'd drop in since I wrote that thing about code validation. Jazajay's points are valid, and I'm certainly not making an argument *against* validating your code. We validate our code all the time while it's in development, make heavy use of web standards, and abandoned table-based layouts ages ago.

But those decisions were not made in order to adhere to an abstract ideal rule-set that people ought to follow but because we understand and appreciate the value coding in this fashion provides.

But an over-emphasis on code validation can rob a project of resources needed elsewhere, and we don't worry ourselves overmuch with problems that don't have any apparent effect.

Hi Thudfactor welcome to DF.
Yes I will admit that I don't always validate to XHTML strict on the odd occasion stated in about 4 posts back, but I can not see how it robs a project. Can you expand on it?

I'll give you an example. In a place I used to work we had a QA process for produced web applications and web pages. Two or three people would spend several days going over a section of a site or application, noting every unescaped ampersand in an HTML link (for example) -- minor things that did not affect display, did not affect browser behavior, and did not affect usability. Each error was a bug report, had to be documented, had to be fixed, had to be regression-tested, and had to be closed.

Usability testing? None. Accessibility testing? Only rules-based. Audience research? Nil. Web application testing? Zip. But because the site passed a mechanical validation process, it was considered good enough for public consumption, and our entire QA process was focused on passing that mechanical validation test.

Code validation is a poor measure of quality. There are certainly code validation issues that impact display, functionality, and accessibility. But rather than focus on getting display, functionality, and accessibility correct, some people focus more on getting the happy green bar on the W3C validator instead, and then think that's sufficient.

That's why I'm saying validation is a tool, not a goal: it helps you identify what's causing these other problems. But the fact that your site validates perfectly really tells you nothing beyond the fact that your site validates perfectly.

mmmmmm nice argument, .
I do disagree with that because as you rightly say ~
That it does, and a true website needs good design, accessibility, usability, SEO and validation, only then is it a high quality peace of work.

If 1 is missing, to me a developer then it is not high quality, 1 of those areas was not completed to the best ability it can be so it is a flawed piece of work, because it can be improved on.

Granted not all validation errors effect the way the site looks, not all on page SEO is needed if it can be circumvented with incoming links, not a great design is needed if your competitors sites suck, not all usability conventions need to be followed to have an usable site, not all accessibility guidelines need to be followed if the site is an Intranet and you know all employees don't have a disability but by ticking all the boxes and crossing all the T's the website is the best it can be. Which means it is a high quality piece of work.

Slacking in 1 area, regardless of what it is, if you can do a better job, means the site is not as great as it can be.

But maybe it's just me who looks at my work that.

"Best ability" is different from absolute perfection, however. There are limitations of time and limitations of resources. The trick is getting the best site you can manage with the tools at your disposal. I tend to think quality is a balancing act. And with web sites, refinement and improvement should be constant. "Quality" is not perfection, but how close we can come to that unattainable ideal.

Honestly, though, I think we're arguing around the edges. All of these things are important -- as is the customer experience, which I don't think we've mentioned except in passing. There's no argument for *not* using a validator. There's no excuse for not reaching a basic level of accessibility. And table-based layout is just a bad idea period (for so many reasons). I think we have plenty of common ground there.

I will conseed to that.

And you are right the customer experience is the main goal, some would argue the only goal, and that can only be achieved by aiming for utter perfection in your work, which is totally impossible, IMO.

CSS sprites
Hay guys and gals this came up in a few designs recently and it slipped my mind TBH so I thought I would update the list.

Now a CSS sprite is a bit like a client side image map but CSS wise.
So for example you have one image of say 20 separate individual images combined you then apply background images and height and width, to elements and just show the background you want to show off that one image.

For example ~
#header,#email,profile{background:url("path/to/1/image/containing/all/3/images/in/the/same/image.png") no-repeat}
#header{width:1000px;height:200px;background-position:0, 200px}
#email{width:10px;height:10px;background-position:201px, 211px}
#profile{width:20px;height:20px;background-position:212px, 232px}

Now the problem is because the image is now in the CSS it has no ALT attribute to show to the user.
To let a blind user read it apply a blank transparent GIF and set the ALT attribute of the GIF to the witting in the sprite.

If it is just decorative though leave it as it is TBH.

So for example following on from the above example ~
<p id="email"><img src="path/to/a/1x1/transparent/gif.gif" alt="Contact us" /></p>

Hope it helps.
Jaz

Key:
Green ~ CSS
Purple ~ XHTML