![]() What does this design say to a machine? Nothing! It only sees the code and that’s it. ![]() You see, while checking if the code you wrote is written correctly, on the surface, may seem like a simple task, that sites meet disabled users’ needs, or that text on the screen is translated properly - the very obvious truth (for those who understand the mechanics involved) is that the complexity of how humans adapt cannot be replicated effectively. The most common problem that validation tools encounter can be summed up in the sense that they are only machines, not humans. The thing about validation tools that beginners (and some seasoned professionals) often overlook is the value of context. There are a lot of tools out there, but you should be wary about which you rely upon. Quite a price for a badge.Īnd there are even people who think validation automatically means everything’s perfect, which is worse. While ensuring your code validates is generally a good thing, there are professionals who take it to such an extent that they resort to hacking their code to pieces, ignoring new and evolving standards or breaking their designs just to get the “valid” confirmation. Those who form drug-like addictions to making everything validate or meet a certain criteria just to please an innate need for approval are on the rise. The case for overdependence is something we need to worry about too. The problems for those ignoring validation altogether has been well-documented to the detriment of end users (as has the justification for following web standards) and as ignoring validation entirely makes you as guilty as those using it as a crutch, it’s worth recommending not to forsake these tools even with their shortcomings.Ī’s front page doesn’t validate, but it doesn’t mean they don’t care. The eye-watering number of errors these popular sites produce (which escalate into the hundreds) is rather unsettling for some. The case for under-dependence can be seen by examining the Alexa Top 100 sites and using some basic W3C validation tests. ![]() The above code may not validate, but it’s acceptable to use if there’s no good alternative. We live in a modern era of enlightened thought where web standards have become a white knight, always charging towards slaying code which fails to best represent our work.īut while current practices actively request and promote using these validation tools, no web-based tool is a substitute for good judgment. Current Practicesīefore we begin critiquing the valiant efforts that our noble code validators undertake (they have good intentions at least), it’s important to note that with all things in life, a balance must be struck between the practical application of validation and common sense. This article aims to underpin the inherent issues of validating your websites through automated web services/tools and how using these tools to meet certain requirements can miss the point entirely. While the use of such tools has benefits (in the sense of being an automated fresh pair of eyes), a worrying trend of either over or under-dependence keeps rearing its ugly head. ![]() Website validation consists of using a series of tools such as W3C’s Markup Validation Service that can actively seek out and explain the problems and inconsistencies within our work. Amongst the basic skills that fledgling designers and developers should know is the art of website validation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |