Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:24 pm Post subject: validation
You can take a look at the validator here. http://validator.w3.org/ Every good webpage will be properly validated, or else not everyone will be able to access it. It's called "accessibility". It just means that a certain webpage was written using standard code, and can be read by any software that is designed to read standard code - including software for blind people, people using PDA's and cell phones, or maybe just people using a different browser that isn't so common (perhaps with images turned off).
I use the Opera browser, which is a high quality browser that will properly render most validated webpages. It's not a common browser, but if people make webpages using standard code, it's guaranteed to be able to show me the webpage. see www.opera.com for more info on that particular browser. Another one worth looking at is Mozilla at www.mozilla.com - JAWS is the most popular "screen reader" for blind people, and lynx is the most popular text-only browser (last I checked).
I almost forgot to mention that search engines, like google for example, are basically just text-only web browsers. If your webpage is validated, google will be able to add you to the search results that they give to people. It's a good idea to validate your websites, just so that you can get listed on the search engines. So, it's not only for blind people, and people using unusual web browsers. Everyone should make sure that their webpages are valid, so that people can find them when they go to google to search for stuff. See www.google.com for more info.
Last edited by qwasty on Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total
Actually the only thing that bothers me a little is the fact that my visitors can't input their email or url next to their name. When people tag a board on some site, they like to promote their sites as well, and I think that's cool. Plus it's easier for me to know which "Annie" just tagged me
Is there a chance that an option like that will be added to the next version?
Invision board smilies are too large, so when the text is shown it looks all mixed up. The reason I used the current smilies is because they are about the same size as text (any smaller and they cud not be seen really).
The width problem can be fixed by using word wrap. I use it in the admin control panel, so check out the code there if u are in need of wrapping the text (i will obviously sort that out in the next version.
This was taken out in version 3 but it is in version 2 (see demo page at the bottom). The reason it was taken out was due to popular demand (wierd huh?). You can leave your email using BBCode or by clicking the Xtras button
Im not sure how much of w3.org I can take, I mean you insert the top line like so:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
then the rest is a case of adding more code to your pages, so in effect they load slower. Seems bizarre to me. But i guess it depends on your audience. My audience is obviously business clients and webmasters like you guys - I try to make my code compatible with all browsers but I would have to confess I dont follow the w3.org regulations purely because of the unnecessary code (which is what programming is about!)
Same goes for your post, however, your site should still validate if the tagboard is in an IFRAME.
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:24 am Post subject: validation is bull? NO.
Validation isn't that big of a deal. Granted, as James alluded to, the W3 people aren't as on-the-ball as they should be, but validation really doesn't have much to do with any of my complaints against the W3C. For the most part, validation is simply a great tool for catching little mistakes that might make a browser toss it's lunch. Browsers like Internet Explorer, specifically.
Internet Explorer (IE) is not a good browser at all. It is unequivocally the WORST browser on the market today...but, Microsoft has promised us that it will get better. In the meantime, there's several fine browsers that are far superior that you can test your webpages on.
XHTML Transitional is what a mainstream webpage SHOULD be made with. There's nothing fancy about. Things only get difficult and crazy when you try to adhere to the W3C's half-baked ideas about seperating style from content. They're actually good ideas, but in the end, the specifications they've come up with don't really achieve the goal at all, and only serve to complicate rather than simplify (that will be changing too, faster than MSIE I hope).
Anyways, to make a long post longer, validate as XHTML Transitional and everything's peachy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum