Re: my new website - feedback required...

"Geoff Berrow" <blthecat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m0ehb296jvlfm3br9l67mm0thndq6ggl8j@xxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <o42dnbXJQ70kMCXZRVny3g@xxxxxxxxx> from Owen contained the
following:

Yeah, I should probably hang my head in shame, just like the incompetant
fools who developed these non-validating failures of sites:

www.amazon.co.uk

www.play.com

www.yahoo.co.uk

www.google.co.uk

...to name but a few. How these people dare call themselves web
developers
is beyond me, they are an embarassment to our profession. No wonder those
websites dissappeared without trace.

Well they are not web developers. They are web sites.

Eh? That's what I said they were, dumbass.

I listed a bunch of websites that don't validate. Yet, astonishingly, they
remain popular and clear successes. And therefore, quite simply, this
PROVES that validation of html means *** all in terms of success of a
website. All that other stuff you wrote doesn't change the plain fact,
now, does it?


But you don't have the clout of google or amazon

Doesn't matter. The point is their sites don't validate. Yet you refuse to
criticise *them* for it. Their "clout" has nothing to do with it. Either
W3C validation is important EVERYWHERE or it isn't at all. You can't have
it important for some sites and not others.

Choose.

Put yourself in the position of the client - given two equally
good companies would you choose the one who took care to ensure their
pages validated or the one who couldn't be bothered?


Neither.

I'd chose the one who's portfolio of websites looked nicest on 2 or 3
different browsers.

I wouldn't give a damn about the html validating.


The whole browser situation is a mess. I don't know what steps Google
take to ensure their pages work

Nothing much, I suspect, becaue we can all see plain and clear that websites
work fine on various different browsers without bothering to "validate" the
html.


Owen


.

Quantcast