Refresh Cleveland

Safari 3 meet CSS3

So this week Apple rolled out the 3.1 version of their Safari browser, with it a lot of nice HTML5 and CSS3 support.

Peter Gasston has a great post with examples over at CSS3.info.

If you use iTunes you may have already downloaded it but if not you can get Safari 3.1 here.  Make sure to visit some of the examples on Peter’s post as well as checking the CSS3.info layout too - CSS drop-shadows and rounded corners abound.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: , , , ,

Refreshing SXSW

I’m lucky enough to be attending SXSW again this year and I’ve found there are quite a few other attendees from various Refresh cities going to.

One event that, I think, we’ll be congregating at is the PhizzPop Design Challenge highlighted on Refresh Austin.  Hopefully I’ll be able to meet up with a few of them and bounce some ideas of whats worked and what hasn’t in other cities.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , ,

Back in the Glass House with a handful of stones…

As my previous post about Cleveland web design companies and validation seemed to ruffle a few feathers I thought I would take this opportunity to look at one of the points that was brought up in the comments - That the company I work for (Optiem*) has a Web site that didn’t pass validation either.

Well that’s true. Optiem.com had a home page that pulled in 20 errors at the time of writing that post. I am happy to say that now, it validates.

I thought I would share the process and changes we went through to get validation on this .NET, CMS powered Web site.

Validation

Firstly, I always take a look at the DOCTYPE and encoding used as this can be a simple fix for some issues. We had chosen XHTML1.0 Strict when originally putting together the HTML PoC. This stayed through the implementation of the CMS. Going back to this we saw that we could just as well be using XHTML1.0 Transitional, so I forced the validator to override the existing type and use Transitional. When run again a couple of errors did disappear. So we made that change on the page templates.

Next was the encoding errors. In the .config file the encoding was being set to UTF-8, though in the <head> of the pages we had specified ISO-8859-1. Simply overriding the validator again showed a drop in errors so that was then fixed in the templates.

HTML changes

The remaining validation errors we had left seemed like simple HTML changes:

  • <span> outside a block-level elements causing problems
  • <label for="f00"> where there was no input named f00
  • border="0" inside an <input>

The label issue was an easy edit in the code. The span issue was a little more difficult. It was causing a lot of the errors as the CMS defaults to wrapping items (block-level or inline) in a span which, it turned out, was easily suppressed by using SuppressWrapperTags="true". This fixed it and cleared a lot of the errors up.

Mystery border

The last one seemed a simple fix. Remove the border="0" from the input. As this was an asp:ImageButton we couldn’t just go in and remove it from the HTML, but the mystery came when we looked at the generated code (when you “view source” in your browser) and couldn’t find it. We found the input but it was showing an inline style (generated on-the-fly) which should not be throwing the validation.

After some head-scratching Ben discovered this post about the exact same problem. It seems that user-agent string returned by the W3C validator is not recognized by ASP.NET so it servers up HTML4 - Hence the validation error.

A quick change to the web.config file and “Presto Chango”, it was fixed.

Going forward

These changes have obviously had a positive impact on the rest of the pages within the site, but there are still a couple changes here and there that need to be addressed:

  • The CMS is generating a <link> to a global.css (for the CMS editing mode) which gets placed within the <body>
  • The WDG Validator still returns the border="0" error and must suffer from a similar problem as the W3C validator at the hands of ASP.NET

The work performed took about 3-4 hours which is all that Mike & Ben could spare at the moment.

I hope that this walk-through helps other developers with problems they might be having with bringing their site through validation as well as going a little way to slay the myth that a database-driven or CMS powered Web site cannot be standards compliant.

* Optiem has no affiliation with this site.  Just sayin’.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , , , ,

2008 for the CWSA…

Last night’s meeting of the CWSA was probably one of the best so far.

Not because there was a stunning speaker, no offence Joe ;-), or cutting edge techniques presented - It was the group deciding what goals we are trying to achieve in 2008. The assembled 30 odd attendees bounced around ideas such as:

  • developing a business case for standards
  • reach out to non-web organizations in Cleveland
  • attending conferences such as An Event Apart or putting on something like BarCamp

It was also heartening to see a good mix of freelancers, educators and professionals from companies such as TenthFloor, Brulant and Optiem (not including myself) coming together and voicing the same opinions.

Heare’s to Cleveland becoming one of the go-to places for standards-based web design in 2008.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , ,

1 out of 9 Cleveland web firms pass validation…

Tonight I did a search (using Google) for the term web design cleveland ohio just to see how many of the top organically ranked sites were standards compliant.

I made sure I was logged out of Google, ignored the paid links and didn’t count the local business results offered.  I also tried to check that all the companies were actually in the Cleveland area too.

So how many passed the mustard?

One - Emit Design.  They were the only one that passed validation out of the 9 listed (one firm came up twice using two different URL’s).

Now I don’t know anyone at Emit (as far as I know) and I can’t say I’m a big fan of the design but the code is a joy to behold next to some of their page one companions including this one that has 85 errors after I had to suggest HTML4 Trans (they hadn’t specified a DOCTYPE) and changed the encoding to iso-8859-1 because the validator choked using the UTF-8 they had specified as they were using non-UTF-8 characters.

So what was the point of my search?

Well, I wanted to look at a few of things:

  1. does using standards guarantee high organic rankings?
  2. how many Cleveland companies are actually coming close to validation?
  3. what are the types of things that are tripping people up?

No is obviously the answer to question number one judging by the nine I got back.  But then I’ve never thought it would.  I believe using standards does help in getting your pages crawled more easily & thoroughly but SEO is more than just getting crawled nowadays.  It’s relvancy, history, meta data, links and a whole lot of other arcane things.  By the same token this shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to code with standards.

Answer to question two, I’m happy to report, is quite a few.  Four out of the nine had under 10 errors.  Mainly around the 3-5 range:

The others fell in the OMG! range.  31, 43 and 11 as well as the aforementioned 85.

Question three’s answer is STUPID SHIT THAT IS EASY TO FIX!  Now there a few things that I let slip when validating sites such as the .NET’s viewstate and some of the crap when you drop FLASH in a page.  These are accommodation’s made because of time constraints in business.   But not closing tags or missing alt attributes - c’mon people!  Even Dreamweaver and Visual Studio can catch these things for you.

And then there’s using <font> tags along with on-page CSS and tables for layout - yes I’m looking at you MJM Design.

So apart from winding me up and making me seem like a zealot, will this post bother these companies? Probably not.  I mean, they are on the first page of Google for that search term and probably get some business from it, but I think it should (my freelance web design site is on page two for the same term and I get none) .  I know a couple of people that work for some of these firms and they do good work.  The look and feel of a lot of these sites are good too.  But this isn’t a blog about how pretty a site is.

Using the W3C standards and being aware of the general web development practices that are used now is what makes you a professional in this arena.  And this blog is all about promoting that in Cleveland.  That’s why I wrote this.  Fix the small stuff, step up and say that it matters to your bosses and to your clients.

Then again, if it did bother them enough to fix it, I may not have much to write about.

Sites looked at were:

Blogged with Flock

Tags: , , ,