Web page validation is a topic that most people in the tech world are well aware of. Many have their own strong opinions on the matter, some don?t care. It?s also apparent that most everyday Internet users are clueless in regards to validation and don?t care either ? and why should they? They?ve come to visit a webpage, not to grade your coding skills.
For the less web-savvy individuals, the World Wide Web Consortium (or W3C) is simply an International consortium of organizations and others who attempt to develop standards for the web ? this includes valid HTML markup. (Keep in mind that nobody put them in charge of the Internet - so they are by no means an ultimate authority on the matter) The W3C describes their mission as follows:
“To lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure long-term growth for the Web.”
Key word here is ?guidelines”. Don?t be confused, their word is not Internet law. Why people go off the deep end simply because of the fact that so many web pages don?t follow strict validation rules is beyond me. While it is definitely important to have guidelines and protocols in place to improve the web, it is currently extremely difficult for a lot of pages to achieve 100% compatibility for numerous reasons. Not to mention, validating wastes a lot of time. I believe it?s important to follow the guidelines to the best of your ability, but don?t spend hours on end fixing so-called ?errors? or even all of the ?suggestions? after your page has already validated.
Time is valuable, you have better ways to use it then going through your code with a fine-tooth comb when it already does what you want it to do. I?m not sure why some people insist on this? just so you can say that it?s valid, or to add the W3C?s little graphic (see below) to your website? It does seem like a good deal for the W3C though, having millions of people linking to their webpage thanks to a validation checker tool.
So… the definition of validation is ?a process of checking your documents against a formal Standard, such as those published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for HTML and XML-derived Web document types?
The W3C present many arguments FOR validation on their website. Examples of these are below…
The W3C states that ?non-valid pages are (by definition) relying on error-correction by a browser. Browsers were obviously designed to do this. This error correction can and does vary radically across different browsers and versions, so that many authors who unwittingly relied on the quirks of Netscape 1.1 suddenly found their pages appeared totally blank in Netscape 2.0. Whilst Internet Explorer initially set out to be bug-compatible with Netscape, it too has moved towards standards compliance in later releases. Other browsers differ further.”
Guess what? We?re now of version 7 of Internet Explorer, we have new versions of Firefox, Safari, Opera and a “standards compliant” web page STILL does NOT look the same in all of these browsers. Same code valid - different results. If browser programmers don’t follow the rules and if complying with W3C coding standards as a web designer does not guarantee cross-browser compatibility, then what good are the validation standards?
Yes, browsers ARE designed to render pages with validation errors in the code ? if they weren?t then you wouldn?t be able to see the majority of websites out there. Browsers are there to do a job, and are also looking for market share. If a browser company decided to be compliant and only show W3C validated pages, how many billions of web pages wouldn’t be visible in your software? If I had to choose at that point between a browser that displayed all pages and error corrected, or one that displayed 10% of the web - but only so-called “valid” pages… which one would you be choosing?
Not only that, but which “evil” software company is famous for not following standards? I did a quick stats check on one of my websites and 91% of the visits were from Internet Explorer. Microsoft hasn?t concerned itself with proper markup and validation standards in the past, so why spend all this effort to validate when they could come out with a completely new version of IE that ignores some of these protocols? All the rules go out the window.
The W3C does not control the web, so don?t let them control you. Your concern if you are a designer should be that your web pages display properly in every browser, whether it is 100% valid or not. Don’t concern yourself with some obscure error message when running a page through a validator check. People will try and scare you with lines such as “New browsers will be totally compliant and people won’t be able to see your web pages.” Is that so? As a consumer why would I use a “New” and “Better” browser that shows me LESS of the World Wide Web?
Argument #2
From the W3C?s website: ?A website doesn’t look like anything at all! It only takes on a visual appearance when it is presented by your browser.?
Then my prime concern should again be how it appears when presented in these browsers and not with how well it validates. Browsers will change, coding standards will change. Don’t waste time validating just for the sake of validating… you can’t predict the future so don’t let the little things consume your time that will most likely turn out to be completely irrelevant.
Argument #3
From the W3C?s website: ?Even if you can, do you want to risk being on the wrong side of a lawsuit if your site proves inaccessible to - for instance - a disabled person who cannot use a ‘conventional’ browser? Accessibility is the law in many countries. Whilst validation doesn’t guarantee accessibility (there is no substitute for common sense), it should be an important component of exercising “due diligence”.
Huh? They have just stated in black and white that validation doesn?t guarantee accessibility. Now I’ll admit this is a more complex topic when you get into accessibility laws that I can?t cover thoroughly in a single post, but the bottom line is that a page that is not valid can still be accessible. I am all for making web pages accessible to the maximum amount of people whether they are disabled or not. Isn?t that what we all want on our websites? Visitors! The fact remains that validating your page to W3C standards won’t guarantee total accessibility.
Argument #4
Another argument people like to make, is that Search Engines like valid code and that it will help our rankings. Here is some text straight from Google?s Webmaster FAQ?s page:
“Question - Does validating my site (with a tool such as the W3C validator) help my site’s ranking in Google’s search results pages?”
Answer - No, at least not directly. However, to the extent that cleaning up your HTML makes your site more accessible to people with disabilities or folks accessing your pages on portable or other devices, it can improve the popularity of your site… increasing natural links to your site (which can help with your Google ranking), traffic, and so on.
Again, this strict compliance with coding standards will get you nowhere. Obviously it?s important to be accessible to both web spiders and people, but validating your site for no apparent reason holds no real value. How many billion of web pages would Google not have indexed if they ignored all pages that were not 100% W3C standards compliant?
The web is supposed to be accessible for people to contribute information as well, not just obtain it. A recent post on Digg.com stated the popular blogging site Technorati.com?s 20 most popular blogs were all not W3C compliant. These are pages with HUGE reader bases that don’t seem the least bit concerned with validation. Why? Because content is more important!
Now when we talk about the average blogger or amateur webmaster, do you think every one of these people is going to read miles of coding standards documents, learn strict CSS and XHTML markup rules and so on just so they can throw their vacation photos on their webpage? Of course not, they’re going to grab a copy of FrontPage or some blogging software to post what they want and are probably oblivious to the fact that validation even exists. Just for fun I did a quick test using the W3C?s validation tool on a few rather large corporate websites. Perhaps you?ve heard of some of them.
http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx
Failed validation, 32 Errors
http://www.oracle.com/index.html
Failed validation, 27 Errors
http://www.adobe.com/
Failed validation, 7 Errors
http://www.hewlettpackard.com/
Failed validation, 101 Errors
http://www.linux.org/
Failed validation, 23 Errors
http://www.google.com/
Failed validation, 30 Errors
And this is one of my favourites:
http://www.amazon.com/
Failed validation, 1418 Errors
Argument #5
From the W3C website - “Do remember: household-name companies expect people to visit because of the name and in spite of dreadful websites. Can you afford that luxury?” (In response to examples such as the list above)
Dreadful Websites? That?s pretty presumptuous. Even if you?re only talking about the validity of code, it?s still quite a stretch. If I?m the guy running Amazon.com, I wouldn?t care for a split second that my page isn?t 100% valid. Why? Because I?m selling millions of dollars worth of merchandise every day and I have better things to do than validate a webpage. In any business I?m running there would be far more important things on my list at any given time than making sure my page is 100% W3C valid, because in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter!
Again, I will state that accessibility and clean code is most likely a priority to these developers, but total compliance with markup rules is usually a very low on their to-do list. Just off the top of my head I would put a few obvious ones ahead of validation, oh let’s say… Profit, Functionality, Usability, Visual Appeal? How many consumers even have a clue what W3C validation is? I?m on Amazon.com to buy a Book and a DVD. As long as I can do that, I don?t care how valid your page is ? and once Amazon has my money ? neither do they.
So at the end of all this, what’s the moral of the story?
Write good clean code, but don’t be crazy!
If you find your page doesn’t validate 100% and you feel left out from all the people with their own “W3C Valid” buttons, feel free to take a copy of my custom made button below for your page.
