Do designers care about w3c specifications?

[json]

I've seen some very cool designs in this forum, but common for most, they are pretty gfx "heavy" (or use flash), and look like they use tables for design.

I've been developing web-sites/-applications for about 6 years now, and more and more of my clients demand the sites can pass the bobby test (accessibility).

What do designers think about the "new" web specifications about XHTML, CSS, XML, XSLT, etc.??

As a developer these are important for me, and when working with a designer that are up-to-date on these specifications, my experience is that the work with "melting" design and application together is easier, and the web-site is faster.

Any comments on this?

regards,
J.

Edit: should probably be moved to the design forum instead!

[cnm72]

hey json...

I have noted a definite shift in the tides where as more designers are taking heed to accessibility... I myself being one of them

I find that using these guidelines are not only better for the user but offer me better control over my work

[rndhosting]

I find that using these guidelines are not only better for the user but offer me better control over my work

Exactly, every site I design gets validated to Html 4.01 (havent bothered to take up xhtml/xml yet) and CSS 2.0. The only exception is when the client DEMANDS something that can only be done by breaking the spec, though i try my hardest to make it work whilst keeping to the rules, in the end the customer is always right.

In my eyes, I feel that the customer will have more trust and faith in you (the designer/coder), if you advertise the fact that the code you produce is "up to snuff" so to speak, and will be viewable for 97%+ of people out there. It shows that you care more about getting it done RIGHT, as opposed to just getting it done quick.

[robc]

A good way to design to standards is not to limit yourself to w3c but to each browser, use javascript to identify which stylesheet to be used or any attached script, as for the actuall syntax, I havent conformed to XHTML completely I do use <br /> and some other things like that, but because it will help later on, and also because <br /> gets you a more accurate space on all browsers than <br>

[cnm72]

but then on the other hand...

:fork:

when does it come to a point where we are just being **** and want to control every single aspect... what is the difference between <br> & <br /> (just using that as an example)? a few pixels that the ordinary user really can't see?

sometimes I drive myself crazy creating work arounds to achieve what is my idea of perfection...

[rndhosting]

sometimes a few pixels is all it takes to mess a graphical design up completely, and yes, I've had some customers that have been this picky as to demand a image to be placed a fraction of an inch to the left/right/up/down/etc.....

[noncompare]

In my case, I "start" out trying to make designs according to standards (xhtml and css, and at the very least html4 which at last check was still a very popular standard). But after that, I don't overly spend too much time re-checking and making it perfect, especially with more involved designs and those that require some user interaction, which can invalidate a page's code fairly quickly after it was previously validated.

Actually in some cases I focus on CSS not because it's "good" per se, but because it provides me a whole lot more control than in any other method.

[robc]

Lets rebell against the controlling W3C... okay maybe not

[stew]

always XHTML 1.0 at least transitional but i aim for strict :) as for css 2.0 every time now without even trying :D

and this includes many graphical intensive sites including 2 im working on jsut now are both valid to xhtml 1.0 strict :D

[Rincewind]

When I worked in Civil Engineering, the customer would specify the standard to be use and the technology. Usually this would be in the form of a British Standards code. For the web the same applies, the customer should request the standard that the work is to be done to. Else they could end up with any old thing form the designer. Though most customers are not savvy enough to understand web standards and technology.

In engineering this lack of customer understanding is removed by the customer employing an architect, surveyor and engineer to set out the plans and specs of the design then a separate firm of engineers or builders would be contracted to do the job. The whole time the work would be overseen by the customers professionals to ensure the contractor did build to the specs. To use only one set of professionals for both design and construction create conflicts of interest and the customer may not have the knowledge to see that corners have been cut.

In web design, the one firm is contracted to do the planing, spec, design and construction of the job. This create a clear conflict of interest in the web designer. Since few customers understand the intricacies of the web, and assume if the site works in IE in there office then it will work everywhere, the design firm will work to the lowest standard and the result is low quality web sites.

It would be prudent of customers, esp for large design jobs, to contract two groups of professionals, one to create the design plans and spec, and another to do the actual coding of the html, php or whatever. This would help to remove conflicts of interest and ensure the customer gets a web design that really does what they need.

However I digress. Unless I absolutely have to - cause the customer requests something non compliant - I design and validate to w3c XHTML 1.1 Strict using CSS1 and CSS2 such as is supported by IE5.5, Netscape 6, And the current versions of Mozilla and Opera. I don't support NN4.7x or similarly aged browsers (unless specifically asked to do so in the design brief). Though if I can, the design will work, and even look good, in text only browsers like Lynx. I also recognise the potential or PDA and mobile phone bases browser growth and am integrating support for small screen display into current projects if practical.

As for <br> or <br />, well since I do xhtml it has to be <br />. However, there is rarely a need to use either. In most cases, there are better ways to markup the page than using line breaks.

[json]

Thanks for the feedback everybody!!

It is nice to know that you designers, have as much focus on the standards, if not more, as I, as a developer have.

Seems like it shouldn't be a problem finding a new designer with the same focus, if my current designer decides to move on.

It's a great help for me, in keeping the design and application seperated, when working with design using CSS and HTML4 or XHTML.

regards,
Json

-- Totally in love with dotNet --

[stew]

ah rince, good ol british standard in engineering, i was going to be a civil engineer till i found web design so much fun :)

got an A grade Higher (Bit harder than an A-Level) in techy drawing, lvoed the damn course :D

anyway I digress.

the best way to deisgn to include NN4.7 is to include a "Lite" version of the site with basic styleing and keep the same code, I do that on most client sites now, infact I jsut finished a "Lite" version of one not an hour ago :)

[Rincewind]

Ah, a fellow Scot.

I'm not keen on serving different styles to different browsers. Doing so usually requires some hack in the css or some browser sniffing script. Instead, I prefer to create designs that degrade gracefull in old browsers rather than look perfect. I start with the content for the site, mark that up, then add the styling. This way, on old browsers that don't support css and on PDA, the page will still apear in a readable mannor. However, NN4.7x trys to disply the css but makes a mess of it. To do a work arround for NN4.7x is just more work that it's worth. NN4.7x is a dead browser. There comes a point where usage of a browser becomes so low as to be not worth considering. For design, IE 5.5 can cause just as many problems as NN due to it's incorrect box model rendering. The sooner IE 5.5 dies the better.

[noloc]

I agree with Rincewind's post about standards. While I'm not sure we entirely need different "sections" as with architects/constructionworkers for instance.
I do however agree that standards are much needed on the web these days, we need to mature the web some more if we want it to make good use of it in the future. And I agree with most people in here, that times are changing towards the better and people, who work with the web for a living somehow, is starting to realise the use for proper standards, though not everybody will be as **** about their html as me, it's certainly babysteps towards something good.

My clients usually don't care for it, until I start explaing the reasons why I'm doing things the way I do. And whenever I do that they usually sees all the good things that comes out of it and certainly appriciate the little "education" I give them..

[noloc]

Oh, I might want to add that I'm somewhere in nomans land between designer and developer, so I'm not strictly a designer. I think though, that the fact that I do both, gives some insight that I'm not sure all designers really care about, because some designers really don't care about technology and/or code and just want to make "pretty pictures".
Which is fair enough, as long as they're working with someone who understands the aspects and technical details of the web..

[Rincewind]

some designers really don't care about technology and/or code and just want to make "pretty pictures".
Someone who makes "pretty pictures" is not a designer. There is some confution that people get from the perception of graphical design and that web design is the same thing. But design is more than just doodling in photoshop. To qualify for web designer you have to be able to go on to impement the graphical design into the approprate media format.

[noloc]

With that I totally agree!
I guess what I meant to say was, that there is alot of people, or "designers", on the web today that simply just makes "pretty pictures", designing for the web is more than that; making something look fairly attractive is only one small part of the game, you still have to make sure the site is usable and delievering what the visitors want, in a timely fashion and so forth..

[ic3d]

To be honoust i still don't understand what's wrong with using tables for design.. furthermore i follow the w3c rules.

[ydmos]

W3C doesn't make rules, thankfully. They make guidelines and recommendations.

The big hype about using css positioning in favour of tables comes from a W3C guideline which, in short, reads:

"Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables."

So, tables were preserved as an acceptable part of html in order to present tabulated *content* ( even though we all know the number of websites out there that use tables solely to do what they are intended to do can be counted on one hand ).

It's a beautiful dream, as are a lot of proposed standards. It calls for web developers to base their layouts on css principles, keeping them separate and indepedent from content. On paper, it looks like it will solve all our problems.

But each different browser still interprets my code however it sees fit. Which quickly drags me back into the reality that no matter how good my intentions are about getting rid of all the internet clutter and unnecessary traffic out there, and making my websites functional and scalable and <insert buzz words here>, if the end result doesn't work the way it's supposed to on all the major browsers, it's just not good enough.

Speaking from personal experience, designing for each separate browser is more work than it's worth. You can end up with upwards of five different versions of your site, after considering two or three different versions of each major browser, three or four major OSes, and so forth.

At the end of the day, from a realistic point of view, I've come to the conclusion that tables are still, in some cases, a necessary evil. They do tend to clutter up the code, but there is still much that css just can't do ( not reliably across most platforms anyway ). When the client comes to me with a vision of what needs to be done, I'm certainly not gonna tell him "no can do. That can't be achieved while upholding the spirit of the w3c recommendations."

With all that said, my websites still validate as xhtml and css compliant. And shooting for the dream is always a good approach. Even though chances are you'll get bogged down along the way. At least for now.

[Isaac]

Took me 1 hour to certify up my site! It looks much cleaner now too. :banana: