15 Apr 2004 | Ralf said...

Erster!

15 Apr 2004 | Erin said...

- Web standards help decrease the size of a web site.

- Web standards make a web site's content accessible to all.

15 Apr 2004 | Matt Haughey said...

Increases accessiblitly in browsers/devices, Lowers bandwidth and development time.

-or-

Ignoring it gets more CSS zealots mad at Jason Fried

:)

15 Apr 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

Breaks in older browsers and does not like Microsoft IE.

15 Apr 2004 | Ruth said...

Web standards make the Internet a better place for everyone.

15 Apr 2004 | Erin said...

Awww... Ruth's answer touched my heart... :)

Also...

Web standards keep Mr. Zeldman in business. ;)

15 Apr 2004 | Eric said...

Make sites faster, more maintainable, and more accessible for less.

15 Apr 2004 | trip said...

all for one and one for all

15 Apr 2004 | Robb Beal said...

Web standards maximize this metric:

# of successful site viewers
---------------------------------------
cost of site development

15 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

Leaner, more accessible sites . But not always - certainly no panacea!

15 Apr 2004 | John Kopanas said...

"Allows more people to access your website cheaper!"

Sounds pretty simple to me... I think we should start to learn how to talk to clients! :-)

15 Apr 2004 | Rob said...

Standards make life easier for creating sites and writing software that interoperates properly. Something MS needs to learn about.

15 Apr 2004 | Anthony said...

"Saves you money!" - Clients love it.

15 Apr 2004 | Thomas Baekdal said...

First of all - why discuss this with clients? I never do.

You discuss business goals, marketing goals, image, brand, persons etc. with your clients.

The site is then built (by the contractor) in the best possible way in terms of usability, accessibility and web languages.

---
To answer your question:
It's more accessible, cheaper and interoperable to use standards.
---

15 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

""Allows more people to access your website cheaper!"

True in many cases, but web standards aren't the only method to skin that cat.

I'd argue that, for example, stripping useless decorative images out of pages is far more effective. (On that issue, ever tried viewing Zeldman's own Happy Cog with images turned off in IE6, Firefox, or Opera?)

Simple un-nested tables, meanwhile, still can present content to the widest variety of browsers. If you're forced to use Nutscrape 4.x due to whatever reason, and have to navigate sites where DIVs rule, isn't that an accessibility issue of a kind?

Too much hype in the whole web standards thing for my liking. That's not to say it's not a step forward, but too many treat it as a holy grail.

15 Apr 2004 | Taylor Garries said...

"Google is blind."

15 Apr 2004 | Craig said...

Cudgel slightly more anal-retentive use against those slightly less so. ( Thanks Devil's Dictionary)

15 Apr 2004 | Lee said...

So your site keeps on working year after year.

15 Apr 2004 | Dave said...

It's cheaper, faster, smarter, and better-looking.

15 Apr 2004 | Darrel said...

more future proof, more easily maintained, easier to make accessible.

15 Apr 2004 | Darrel said...

Simple un-nested tables, meanwhile, still can present content to the widest variety of browsers.

Of course they can. Tables are a web standard.

If you're forced to use Nutscrape 4.x due to whatever reason, and have to navigate sites where DIVs rule, isn't that an accessibility issue of a kind?

The easiest way to support NN4 is to develop your site using semantic, clean markup. Style for all the fancy browsers and just deliver NN4 the accessible, semantic, clean content.

15 Apr 2004 | Brian Sweeting said...

Enhanced accessibility
Easier to maintain or change
Faster to download

(10 Words)

15 Apr 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

Clients dont care, but hot net chicks do.

15 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"The easiest way to support NN4 is to develop your site using semantic, clean markup. Style for all the fancy browsers and just deliver NN4 the accessible, semantic, clean content."

I don't want to get into a detailed debate about a broken tool that I would gladly consign to the scrapheap, but I've never understood how yer typical built, semantically-pure site is supposed to offer a decent experience to NN4 users and their ilk. It just doesn't - and for me that is an accessibility issue.

One thing is for certain: on the sites I look after (which, combined, form a very sizeable and varied international audience) NN4 usage dwarfs JAWS/Lynx usage. And yet many of the 'pure' CSS sites out there (and a prejudice against using tables for layout was obvious enough for Zeldman to criticise it once) seem to prefer to cater to the latter audience in some (misguided?) belief that CSS naturally delivers better accessibility. In my opinion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at this moment in time, in part because old browsers are still more common than screen-readers, etc.

By the same token, I just don't get how so many CSS aficionados proclaim its superiority in terms of bandwidth and page-loading and then proceed to cram their pages with images, javascript, or plain old verbiage.

I think JF was bang-on the other week: CSS has become a fetish for too many people. Although, as ever, that's not a fault of the language itself. Or indeed of those who brought it to prominence.

15 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

That should say:

"yer typical <div> built, semantically-pure site..."

Bloody preview feature!!

16 Apr 2004 | aliotsy said...

Watch this. Neon pink headers, site-wide? Done. CSS rocks.

16 Apr 2004 | Justin said...

Simple rules for easy website development and consistent results

16 Apr 2004 | beto said...

More ROI, accesibility and better performance - less work for us.

16 Apr 2004 | Todd Warfel said...

Web standards keep your site working even after you're long gone.

16 Apr 2004 | Dan said...

Please Stop Confusing Brevity With Clarity.

16 Apr 2004 | Greg Brooks said...

Your content matters -- make it extensible; give it longevity.

16 Apr 2004 | Flemming Mahler said...

Webstandards gives you a defendable/measurable target in website quality

16 Apr 2004 | Rimantas said...

"I've never understood how yer typical built, semantically-pure site is supposed to offer a decent experience to NN4 users and their ilk"

Accesible is not the same as decent experience. It may not look as nice as in latest browsers, but you can still read what's there.

And talking about it: just get NN4.x and go around the web. Many, too many web sites built in "old way" still look crap. So that's the point of sticking to old methods?

"...seem to prefer to cater to the latter audience in some (misguided?) belief that CSS naturally delivers better accessibility. In my opinion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at this moment in time, in part because old browsers are still more common than screen-readers, etc."

Looks like you don't get the main idea of CSS and content/presentation separation. How in the world CSS makes
site less accessible in older browsers? You just have your content in
good old html file. Styled or not styled - any browser can show it.

"By the same token, I just don't get how so many CSS aficionados proclaim its superiority in terms of bandwidth and page-loading and then proceed to cram their pages with images, javascript, or plain old verbiage."

Let me repeat: You just don't get CSS. Take any 'old school' page, and take a look at it's navigation code. Few items in menu can fill entire screen with TRs, TDs and so on. Then take any decent 'new school' page, and see plain simple UL there. Overhead is only 9 chars per menu item + some for

And not to be off-topic:
"Web standards increase efficiency".

16 Apr 2004 | Rimantas said...

oops, some noise in my signal. Sorry.

16 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Looks like you don't get the main idea of CSS and content/presentation separation."

Looks like you have a very narrow view of accessibility to me, as well as seeming to have swallowed a particular myth whole.

Presenting unstyled content to an audience makes that content harder to read, navigate through, print, whatever. That is a basic fact of web design. 'Content/presentation' should be separate, but they must also be brought back together ready for consumption. Concentrating on separation without thinking about bringing the elements back together is technical fetishism again.

To use a flawed example, it's a bit like presenting a blind reader with a braille copy of a book they've requested but neglecting to organise that braille copy in any meaningful way, instead just handing them over sheets of paper with perfectly written braille and telling them to get on with it. The original book is thus made 'accessible', but obstacles to fair, equal use still remain.

As for your point about the merits of <ul>s over <tr>s, etc. - I agree wholeheartedly. But 'new school' CSS design didn't invent lean, mean HTML code. It has been around for years and most web designers simply ignored it. I would no more use multiple nested tables to present a menu list than I would use @lt;blink@gt;. But then, I never have done. :)

16 Apr 2004 | Rimantas said...

"Looks like you have a very narrow view of accessibility to me, as well as seeming to have swallowed a particular myth whole."

Well, let's just agree, that what we mean different things by "accessibility". I won't go into this again as this has been discussed few days ago and Thomas Beakdal put it nicely.

Content/presentation' should be separate, but they must also be brought back together ready for consumption. Concentrating on separation without thinking about bringing the elements back together is technical fetishism again.

I can't agree more. But then again:

But 'new school' CSS design didn't invent lean, mean HTML code. It has been around for years and most web designers simply ignored it.

That's the buzz: let's stop ignoring. And let's face it - you cannot separate much having only HTML ;)

To sum it up: technologies do not make something accesible or usable by default. You can have a very good usable and accessible page built with HTML, and total crap built with XHTML/CSS, nothing new in that. In my opinion CSS provides you 'better way' to do it.

Switching technologies and way of work is the very good point to review what you are doing, how you are doing it, and why. Good point to break an inertia. And then you can improve.

I think, I will stop here, cause I think it is a bit off topic and overdiscussed elsewhere :)

16 Apr 2004 | Andy Budd said...

Standardisation leads to increased interoperability and decreased development time.

16 Apr 2004 | John Handelaar said...

Because next time you redesign, it'll be almost free, dude!

16 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Because next time you redesign, it'll be almost free, dude!"

I fear for the industry somewhat if that's how CSS is being sold!!

Rimantas: it appears that we agree more than disagree. I am all for CSS used well, and certainly welcome the 'new school' emphasis on increased accessibility, interoperability, etc. I just don't like the way that too many people hang on the every word of the CSS gurus, just as those who slavishly ditto Nielsen get on my tits!

16 Apr 2004 | Darrel said...

but I've never understood how yer typical built, semantically-pure site is supposed to offer a decent experience to NN4 users and their ilk. It just doesn't - and for me that is an accessibility issue.

It depends on the site, but good, well formatted content is a fairly decent user experience. You don't have to kill all styles, either. You can certainly just use a different style sheet for NN4.

Presenting unstyled content to an audience makes that content harder to read, navigate through, print, whatever.

First of all, even NN4 has a basic set of default styles. If your navigation is a list, your content has proper headers, paragraphs, blockquotes, etc, then you have a very easy to scan page.

Can you show us an example of a CSS based site that you think becomes unusable in an CSS-less browser?

Here's an example for my side of the argument:

http://www.baekdal.com/example.asp

Looks great. Now turn off CSS. Doesn't look great, but it's very clearly organized, labeled, and accessible. I can GET to the content quite easily.

To use a flawed example, it's a bit like presenting a blind reader with a braille copy of a book they've requested but neglecting to organise that braille copy in any meaningful way

No, it's not. Semantic markup *is*, by very definition, content organized in a meaningful way.

16 Apr 2004 | Jason Wall said...

forward thinking, backward compatible, fast and efficient solutions for websites.

16 Apr 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Easier to maintain, meaning less future costs.

16 Apr 2004 | but that's just me said...

because I said so

16 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Semantic markup *is*, by very definition, content organized in a meaningful way."

I did say that my example was flawed. ;)

However, I disagree that semantic HTML is inherently well organised. You can have perfectly valid, semantic HTML that still doesn't offer anything near the usability of a normal layout - which constitutes an obstacle to use in my opinion.

If you want to present a sidebar menu (because you're trying to abide to Fitts's Law and want your menu options as near as possible to the active viewing area for example) then you have a choice to make if you also want to avoid all tables for layout in some CSS heaven. The underlying code may be flawless, but what will the sighted user using a visual browser care about that if the page necessitates constant scrolling up and down just to move about?

Look, I work for an organisation where NN4 is still (sadly) used by hundred if not thousands of employees whose PCs are not going to be updated any time soon, new web browsers being low down on our hospital's priorities. Increasingly I have to deal with complaints that certain sites (http://www.salford.ac.uk/ has cropped up a few times - you wanted an example!) are 'difficult to use', 'broken', 'make no sense'.

I know that CSS layouts are a good thing, overall, for the evolution of the web. But a bit less zealoutry would be welcome because a significant number of people are still stuck with crappy browsers - two years after Zeldman's promotional burst. The same kind of sympathy should be extended to them that is extended to JAWS users, etc.

I mean, what in the end is wrong with laying out your page in a single, simple HTML table that presents the same basic order of elements for the widest audience, and using CSS for the more optional, more advanced styling techniques? Why has the purist DIV approach got such a stranglehold? What am I missing?

16 Apr 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Jonny ... Hmmmm ... did you post ten words, or just some power of ten?

:-)

16 Apr 2004 | Darrel said...

However, I disagree that semantic HTML is inherently well organised. You can have perfectly valid, semantic HTML that still doesn't offer anything near the usability of a normal layout - which constitutes an obstacle to use in my opinion.

Sure. I agree. But realize that a plain-jane semantic HTML page is often going to me much more usable that a lot of the stuff out there that has been smashed into tables for NN4's sake.

There's exceptions to both of our arguments. That said, I'd still suggest that focusing on the clean, semantic markup first, will often result in a usable version of the site for almost anyone and that a bit of CSS can help the layout a lot for something like NN4.

Look, I work for an organisation where NN4 is still (sadly) used by hundred if not thousands of employees whose PCs are not going to be updated any time soon

You realize that I can take clean, semantic HTML and still use CSS to stick a navigation column on the right in NN4, right?

I mean, what in the end is wrong with laying out your page in a single, simple HTML table that presents the same basic order of elements for the widest audience, and using CSS for the more optional, more advanced styling techniques?

Not much. I use that technique still today.

The one drawback is that you are forcing a specfic content order for ALL browsers in that case. And that can be a problem when you often need/want to show different orders for visual browsers, audio browsers, PDA browsers, and text browsers.

16 Apr 2004 | Cheryl Wise said...

Jonny Roader said...

I mean, what in the end is wrong with laying out your page in a single, simple HTML table that presents the same basic order of elements for the widest audience, and using CSS for the more optional, more advanced styling techniques? Why has the purist DIV approach got such a stranglehold? What am I missing?

I use my Pocket PC frequently for browsing when I have a connection away from my office. What's wrong with your "simple" table is that I end up having to scroll every line horizontally to read the text. The more I use "alternate" devices such as handhelds the more I appreciate tableless designs. I'd far rather have to scroll down either past navigation or to get to the navigation than have a wide table (wide in the context that my screen only has 240px available) to scroll line by line.

17 Apr 2004 | Joe Clark said...

Web-standard markup lets browsers know what you really mean.

17 Apr 2004 | Sunny said...

Web standards are twice the fun, and half the price.

17 Apr 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"I use my Pocket PC frequently for browsing when I have a connection away from my office. What's wrong with your "simple" table is that I end up having to scroll every line horizontally to read the text. The more I use "alternate" devices such as handhelds the more I appreciate tableless designs. I'd far rather have to scroll down either past navigation or to get to the navigation than have a wide table (wide in the context that my screen only has 240px available) to scroll line by line. "

But that's precisely my point about Netscape users and table-less designs - too much scrolling. Horizontal scrolling is ugly and counter-intuitive, but then scrolling vertically up and down whole screens when you're used to not doing can be plenty painful too. Like I said, I have fielded enough complaints within my organisation that attest to this.

But I take your point. And Darrel, believe me that I don't like 'forcing a specific content order for ALL browsers' - but I have thousands more Netscape users than users with alternative devices and it's the easiest way to cater for them. Due to my own limitations (and the crappiness of NN4) I have never been able to get a pure CSS layout working less than awfully in that browser - I'd be very interested if you could post an example of a suitably unmangled design that works well elsewhere.

Don: you know me, never use ten words when 10,000 will do! Besides, my ten word attempt is above.

17 Apr 2004 | Darrel said...

" but I have thousands more Netscape users than users with alternative devices"

Well, there you go...server the needs of your particular audience.

As for CSS with NN4, it's best to server up a separate style sheet and use absolute positioning.

18 Apr 2004 | Andrew said...

Efficient, standardised code gives you a better search engine ranking.
10 words :D

18 Apr 2004 | Jonathan Dietrich said...

my attempt in 10 "words":
----
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="explain.css"/><div>simplicity!</div>
----
contents of explain.css:
----
div:before {
content: "A set of rules for constructing content for the web. These rules make it easier to build and change your pages, easier for browser vendors to create browsers that do what you expect them to, and all end users to get at your content. Pure "
}

18 Apr 2004 | Michael said...

make more money and spend less money

19 Apr 2004 | apartness said...

What is your alternative?
Defend it.
(Four words to spare.)

20 Apr 2004 | Paul Nattress said...

Ever had to do a corporate rebrand? Ever had a CEO decide that the company blue needs to be company mauve? Ever had your brand department win the battle to remove the intrusive trademark sign from the logo?

Easy to do with standards. Although if the CEO finds out that changing the colour is easy to do you're in trouble...

20 Apr 2004 | Mike said...

It's not just a good approach, it's a modern approach.

21 Apr 2004 | Tim Hill said...

'Set of global rules for proper presentation'

The reason that many people shun NN4 is because of its dwindling user base and poor support of standards. It will only get smaller, not bigger, while people using other platforms to access the internet (ie pda, mobile phones, fridges etc...) will only increase.

And an easy way to have this information available to this audience that may not have CSS support is to just provide the content without the presentation. This can be achieved more easily with stylesheets.

21 Apr 2004 | ben said...

What I find interesting is that lots of folks are giving pet/preferred reasons, but not so many are providing reasons that would matter to clients.

Most of the answers pertaining directly to the original inquiry point to site TCO. Duh.

Let me go about the answer anecdotally:

I've read from many sources, both within and without Holland, that English is a ubiquitous second language in NL. Ditto with Switzerland. And apparently, in both countries multinationals tend to communicate interdepartmentally... in English.

Web standards are worthwhile to clients for the same reason English is the lingua franca of the business world: every part of the system, the content, the structure, the logic, have standards as that central point of reference that makes it possible for new and old production to be interchangeable.

For those who haven't figured it out, the interchangeability and extensibility makes tremendous breadth possible, as others here have pointed out.

Thence stability and a good foundation for progress.

...But because the world is full of people who like what they know and know what they like, not everybody is interested in stability or progress for everybody, just for themselves.

Just sayin'.

Hooray for the spirit of community!

21 Apr 2004 | ben said...

Oh, ten words or less...

They [Web standards] make dissemination of information to the entire audience possible.

I'll let the managers and marketers figure out the implications of that.

I think I'm hearing an echo.

22 Apr 2004 | myobie said...

Reaching every potential consumer effectively with a lower TCO sucka.

TCO (one word, ha) Total Cost of Ownership...

ok dudes, you may hate Zeldman or love him, that's not the point...
read the newest ALA and you will see that you can even use plugins in your page with standard valid strict XHTML code...Flash...hmmmm

and as far as valid code being the end all, dudes, learn how to design also...be a programmer and a designer...make it usable...think of your audience...if your audience is NN4 then fine...dudes do your job well...i love talking to people who are servants to they audience and their clients effectively...

be subservient sucka

22 Apr 2004 | Gothamgal said...

Clients want the newest, hippest thing at all times.

26 Apr 2004 | Jake Ham said...

Creates separation between content and layout for systematically rich design.