Slashdot Mirror
Are 99.9% of Websites Obsolete?
citizenkeller writes "Zeldman is at it again: " Though their owners and managers may not know it yet, 99.9% of all websites are obsolete. These sites may look and work all right in mainstream, desktop browsers whose names end in the numbers 4 or 5. But outside these fault-tolerant environments, the symptoms of disease and decay have already started to appear.""
I cant even keep OUR damn site up and compliant.
.. pages that work with older browsers - are choking up the newer ones.
It worked in all the current browsers a year ago.
but with IE 6 and the new netscape coming out - you would *THINK* there would be backwards compatability.
However, I get e-mails all the time from things that are now 'suddenly' broke.
And after verifying what browser/etc the user encountered this error with - amazingly enough
*go figure*
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Near as I can figure out, he's claiming "the web is broken, don't bother."
The book looks broken. Don't bother.
John
You can read the Webmaster World article, "XHTML -- is now the time?" if you want to read a debate among professionals. There are many pros, primarily developers of small sites, that are advocating dropping NN 4 for XHTML Strict and CSS, but most developers aren't going that route.
They are developing XHTML 1.0 trans or HTML 4.01, maybe adding CSS to go foward. NN4 will be around for a while, and few people are willing to write them off simply to appease the standards gods.
In the real world, we build sites for human composition. We separate content from display with our databases and content management. HTML may be an inefficient way to get the data to the browser (XML+XSLT would be ideal, XHTML+CSS would be easier on the browser), but it works. The browser parsers are done.
Sure XHTML+CSS is easier on the browser, and that may help rendering issues. However, the reality is that old browsers will be with us for a while. Maybe in 5 years this will matter, but not until then.
Alex
Now that the bubble has burst, fixing "obsolete" sites is not a priority. IT staffs have been cut, resources have been redirected into projects that actually turn a profit, or the "web guys" are gone all together. Nobody is around or has time to fiddle with the brochureware homepage.
And Jeffrey Zeldman will help us fix the errors or our ways! Anyone check Amazon for the price on this baby?
Who on earth is running a browser earlier than 4.x? Do you expect stuff to be rendered right if you use an older version of IE/Netscape/Opera? Do advertisers want to sell to people that refuse to use the latest and greatest thing? Don't you have to try real hard to even find an older version of any of these browsers?
Sounds like a cheap way to sell a book - and a little extra helping of FUD thrown in.
This space for rent.
No!
(Hmm, I was tempted to leave that as is, but I think at least a little explanation is required. Zeldman disagrees with his own thesis in as much as he says that sites like Yahoo! are important because of what they offer not how they look. So QED a site that relies on it's content is not obsolete. Tadaaa!)
A little planning goes a long way...
Talk about sensationalism. The article just points out that many web sites have mark-up errors in them. Big deal. To go from that to saying that 99.9% of sites are obsolete is just dumb.
This is just a sensationist way to promote a book. Shame it got onto the front page of Slashdot. It will encourage more to do the same.
Backwards compatibility means it works in older browsers. As Zeldman mentions, it always has some cutoff point, such as Netscape 3 or IE 2.
Forwards compatibility means that it works in newer browsers. There is not necessarily any cutoff point, as long as you have constructed the website correctly. Structural problems and other typos in the HTML, proprietary and deprecated tags, and versioning can all limit the forward compatibility of the page.
Read the article and you'll see that Zeldman is arguing that web designers should be developing with forwards compatiblity in mind. Unsurprisingly, yours is one of the 99.9% of all sites that have not.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Correction .. I mean to say my employer's website, which uses asp/javascript/VB
.. my personal website uses PHP .which is just getting parsed into html for your browser}
.. if you would read the article .. even basic HTML can be corrupted ..
.. previous incarnations of browsers tolerated (and corrected) sloppy html.
.. got my CS degree in 1994 .. i never even learned visual basic in college] they are/were not always *aware* of things that html 'requires' but the browsers let them get away with.
{and technically
however
IE 5.5 will support nested tables up to 7 in depth. Netscape 6 will only support up to 4 in depth.
Netscape 4.7 does not require quotes around 'field' tags like width or height.
Netscape 6.0 can do unusual things if they are not there.
the problem (as stated in the article) is that becuase of the past 'browser wars' fighting for dominance
Now that everyone is trying (or at least saying they are) getting on the w3 bandwagon. These little 'faults' are starting to cause errors.
And since the vast majority of web pusblishers and early adopters out there have not received *formal* training in html [I for example
5 years of bad habits become 2nd nature.
sorry for the confusion.
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
It seems so altough w3 offer a validator for free.
Maybe learning html in a weekend or in faster don't help keeping the quality of code at high level ; )
Our website is not only obsolete (it was designed that way from the ground up), but it's ugly and almost entirely non-functional too! Mainly we use it to harbor and distribute viruses inside the company. It's been very effective.
Now that he's completely met his goal of total obsolescence, our webmaster spends every day looking for new ways to make our website even less useful, uglier, and more of a pain-in-the-ass to use. He's been very effective.
I've always considered Zeldman to be one of those self-proclaimed know-it-alls who has had little real industry experience in high volume, high technology web-sites. Most of his portfolio is brochure-ware that looks like it was done by a team of one. So I've always considered his belly-aching a little simplistic and, frankly, unrealistic in current web development scenarios.
It's easy to lament the fact that these sites aren't standard, but there are clearly reasons why most of these sites don't fit his vision of standards compliance.
For one, most sites don't have the budget to develop to standards. It's much easier to code to specifics and use non-standard work-arounds where possible then to boil everything down to the least common denominator (which standards are supported by whom). When I say easier, I mean that years of experience have instilled intimate knowledge in the seasoned web developer that almost comes as instinct now.
Secondly, all of these "standards" are interpreted differently by the different browsers, so you can't insure consistent look and feel without kludges.
Third, most of the foundations for these sites were layed out before coding to a standard was even possible, and when the mindset was not focused on any sort of standards compliance.
Finally, I've always thought that they made writing to standards compliance sound easier then it actually is, because even though it's called a standard, it rarely exhibits standard and consistent behavior across the various platforms. Most art directors and graphic designers - specifically those that migrated from print or traditional design - tend to be exteremly unyielding in the way their designs are interpreted on the web, leaving developers with few options that are fully supported by these so-called standards.
Personally, I think Zeldman needs to spend some time in the trenches working on a large site with a large development team under real deadlines for real clients. Things are rarely ideal in these circumstances.
What is it they say about armchair coaches?
How many variations of 'standards' should one have to comply with to make a usable, functional, Web-based information node? That I have to test against huge numbers of browser/platform/OS variations is a massive waste of time and energy, when I should instead be able to focus on making the information clear and the functionality flawless.
I'm not saying that we as a collective need to move back to HTML 1.0, but there has got to be a solution to increasing complexity in Web information spaces. Companies that intentionally cripple some browser/OS combinations are doing the greater community a vast disservice.
The majority of Web pages are not necessarily broken, but reflect limits on the time and energy of those who create them to keep up with 'standards' that seem to shift every other week.
It's harder to play one note and have it be perfect than it is to play a thousand and have them be close. Most people choose the latter, and hope that one note hits home.
Here's a condensed version of the article for those who don't have time to slog through it:
1. Standards are good.
2. Bad code that happens to work in current browsers is bad.
3. Buy my book.
It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
Zeldman asserts that the problem plaguing web developers is a desire for backward compatibility. In fact, that desire seems unfortunately missing in most websites. The real problem making websites suck is the desire to view the web as a graphic design medium.
Designers want to control every pixel of a page's layout, completely ignoring what the web was designed for. If everyone used logical markup to describe their data, later adding CSS to attempt to influence the layout, the web would be a much friendlier place. It may not look exactly the same on every browser (which, come to think of it, may be Zeldman's point), but with proper testing, it should look similar on popular browsers, and at least be LEGIBLE on others.
People need to be convinced that the web is not a graphic design medium. That's what PDF files are for. People don't try to build their sites solely from PDF files, because that just wouldn't fly. Instead they try to use the web to achieve the same goal, completely oblivious to the fact that it's a really poor tool for that purpose. Rather than embracing a new paradigm, they try to contort it to look like what they already know. To me, that's just incompetence.
I want to do a nice little page, and do it in XHTML because it's The Way Of The Future (or I want to display a little math, which only XHTML+MathML allows without resorting to ugly inline images). The tag soup itself isn't a problem, I just close all my tags and make sure the doctype declaration says XHTML instead of HTML, as prescribed by the standard.
However, is this enough? The document is now XML, and therefore should have a <?xml declaration, if only to specify its encoding. Except that said XHTML standard says it is optional if the encoding is UTF-8 or UTF-16, or has been otherwise determined (think HTTP headers), which contradicts the XML standard, sec. 4.3.3, the last two paragraphs, one which says that no declaration and no other information means mandatory UTF-8, and the next one "It is also a fatal error if an XML entity contains no encoding declaration and its content is not legal UTF-8 or UTF-16."
So I need a declaration no matter what. But according to this page about the different layout modes in current browsers, MSIE will react to an XML declaration by switching to "quirks" mode, which is precisely what I wants to avoid by sticking to the standards... And I wouldn't want to lock out 85% of WWW users, wouldn't I?
But wait, this is only if the page was served with a text/html content-type. The right answer would then be to use the standard content-type for XML/XHTML... which should be application/xhtml+xml! Yes, "application"! Now if I use that content-type, all browsers I have at my disposal except Mozilla (MSIE5, Konqueror, Links, Lynx...) either consider the page an application and offer to save it to disk, or display it as-is! Same with the second-best, text/xml.
Okay, am I the only one experiencing this? Any point in not using good-ol' HTML4 and avoid doing (yet another kind of) horrible bugware?
it's lost its meaning. It's been degraded by marketing drones and morons to mean 'anything thats not the cutting edge'.
:P
Here's what it means: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=obsolete
Hell, I still use lynx when all I want to do is snag a tarball. My linux boxes dont even have a GUI. If the content there has meaning, who cares if the web page uses the latest 'nifty tricks'. Is an ASCII text file obsolete? No, not if the information it contains is valid. Is EBSDIC (sic) obsolete? Probably. I cant even remember the acronymn
I'm constantly hearing how my P3 600 is obsolete. There's nothing that doesn't run on it. Hell, I have a router box running a P90.
Is my original NES obsolete? Or my Atari 2600, for that matter? Not as long as I enjoy playing them.
Is a 2001 model vehicle obsolete because the 2002 line is introduced? It does have a bigger cupholder, after all.
If people want to push their agendas, sell whatever they're selling, go for it. Just quit trying to redefine perfectly cromulent words in the english language to do so. Make up new ones, like cromulent. I propose 'obsolastweek' to mean everything that wasn't shrinkwrapped within the last 24 hours.
This article should read "99.9% of websites are obsolastweek because they haven't been redesigned because some propellerhead made a new widget"
Propellerheads (I can use that word because I am one), dont realise the cost of doing business. The world doesn't start over at 0 just because they invented something 'slightly better'.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
...who don't understand what HTML is.
You're not supposed to be able to. That's not what HTML does.
HTML is a content language. The whole beauty of it is that the final presentation is NOT THE DESIGNERS RESPONSIBILITY. No web site will look the same on all platforms - that's the point.
The people you are talking about are not 'web designers' - cannot be, because they don't have a clue what the web is. If you cannot accept the fact that your content can be presented different ways (including to blind people) as appropriate to each individual client, you have no business on the web. Make .pdf files or something.
I know someone will interpret this as flamebait, and someone else will probably tell me to 'get with the real world' or the like, but in fact I am just telling you the truth, and I'm quite grounded in the real world. There has been no shortage of people explaining these simple facts about what HTML and the Web are, in simple terms and moderate tones, from the very beginning - and sadly there has been an overabundance of self-styled 'designers' that refuse to understand the medium and insist on trying to make it what they want it to be, instead of what it is. REAL designers work with their medium, they take the time to learn how it works and why, and they produce designs that are appropriate to it, rather than insisting that every media work the way their favourite one does and breaking it every time they touch it. And that is something that every decent art teacher in the world tries to teach his students. Sadly, the students, particularly the ones that go into web design, don't often listen. I'm not trying to pick on you personally, but your clueless post makes an excellent example I must admit.
'Designers' that couldn't be bothered to understand the medium of the web before proceeding to dump their work on it have done great damage to the web, and that's something I happen to care about quite deeply. Your ad-hominen attacks and dismissals of Zeldman aside, he makes a point that is absolutely true, and will have real economic consequences. All that patched up proprietary spaghetti code of mal-formed HTML-abuse IS coming down. While standards compliant pages from the very earliest days of the web still display perfectly in the latest nightly builds of Mozilla, the pages written by people with the philosophy your post shows ARE becoming obsolete, very quickly. In a way, the 'designers' that can't be bothered to learn their medium have won - the new standards will allow them to do what they always wanted to do, and what HTML was never designed to do - to specify layout and 'look and feel' issues. But it will require them to do it in ways that consistent with the underlying philosophy of HTML and the web - something they've never shown any interest in doing before. I expect to hear a lot of whining from that corner in the coming years, but don't look to me for sympathy.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
You're talking about forwards compatibility of the HTML code (being able to render properly on future browsers, where the onus of compatibility is on the HTML author).
:) Either term works for this application as long as you are looking from the correct side of the issue.
... that works, but only if you write your code compliant 100% to standards. That means leaving out all the proprietary cruft (which became especially prevalent in the "4.0s" of Netscape and IE) -as well as- all of the stuff that doesn't work in a cross-browser environment.
:).
The parent was talking about backwards compatibility of the browsers (being able to properly render old HTML code in a new browser, where the onus of compatibility is on the browser author).
It's semantics, but I didn't start the nitpick
As for the parent that wanted browsers to be backwards compliant
This is very hard to do if you want interactive sites, or at least was until recently when most browsers began to pay more attention to standards such as the DOM (document object model).
Again, we're back to a very basic problem. Do you write your page to work in old browsers or do you use the latest standards? I'm less concerned with this (as the author of the book seems to be) than I am with the idea of writing code to today's standards and having it work in future browsers.
I as a user understand that I'm taking my experience in to my own hands if I try to load a modern page into Netscape 1.0 (but it is fun some times
However, words can't express my frustration when I have the most modern browsers available and I can't load a page because it was written for an older browser. This happened to me yesterday when trying to sign up for a service from my phone company. The reps kept saying "I see that option, you should have it to". 30 minutes later I decided to load the same page into a 2 year old browser and it worked fine. It had used some tags that were horribly broken, not in any standard, and later abandoned by all involved.
If the modern browsers had had to be compatible with everything since the dawn of the web, they would be twice as large and 4 times as buggy. I would much rather that web authors stick to published standards and not rely on proprietary tags for public pages.
From what I see, this is what the book's author meant by "obsolete" and I agree. Most websites, if locked down and not changed for 3 years, would no longer render in the browsers that are new in 3 years.
While they will naturally work to fix these issues as the new browsers are released, they would not have to if they wrote to the basics. And the problem with fixing things as they evolve is that some pages (like that damned phone company page) get ignored and by the time they're found no one knows how to fix them.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
At one point durring the heyday of the .com gold rush, people threw money at companies which claimed the ability to draw increadible proffits at some undetermined point in the future. Some onsider this long term thinking, while others consider it foolishness.
Website designers have learned this lesson well. They strive to serve their business clients by allowing them interact with the largest customer base possible by using clunky non-standard, bandwidth-consuming techniques to get outdated browsers to render their stores in the desied fashion.
You really can't blame website designers for this, nor can you blame site owners. The designers are working to meet their client's requirements, which is to make money, by being accessible to the largest percentage of the available customer base.
The fault, dear brutus, is in ourselves. Website visitors are at fault, for using browsers which promote this non-standard architecture. Certainly no one will use a browser which is strictly standards complient such that any non-standard website would not be visible, because that would diminish the user's internet experience; but this is what's required. We need to force site owners to become standards compliant, which will in turn improve efficiency throughout the net.
If only, bandwidth were more expensive, this problem would already have been fixed, as the bandwidth costs of ineficient non-standard site design would be far mor visible.
It really is a foustian bargain. Reduce revenue by modernizing your website thereby making it inaccessible to older browsers and thus reducing your potential customer base and save money on bandwidth usage, then wait for web users to upgrade their browsers so as to be able to view your site, and build up your custoemr base once again; or, cater to every antiquated browser in existance, so as to maximize your potential customer base, and accept the increased bandwidth costs.
In the long term, with a little short term pain, this problem will be resolved, but in the short term, there really is no good answer.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Who ever uses an older browser ussually isn't a power user to start with and isn't looking for the latest fluff anyway.
Who ever said a Compaq IPaq running Pocket Internet Explorer, or a Sharp Zaurus running Opera at a max screensize of 320x200 is "an older browser"?
When HTML and CSS are used correctly, optimally and compliantly the resulting websites are far more accessible in more user-agents that the mere crop of bloated OS based browsers.
Yeah, that's right. It was the fault of all those developers who didn't have the forsight to see the standards that would eventually be approved years later. What were they thinking?
It didn't have anything to do with the standards process being slow, or diverging from the needs/demands of the market (HTML 3.0). And even after the standards were finally approved with buy-in from the browser makers, no blame rests with both Microsoft and Netscape for serious bugs in their 4.x browsers, often causing their browsers to crash on many CSS features.
Yep, those developers were at fault. They learned bad techniques, when those techniques were the only way to accomplish what their customers wanted. They continued to use them when the 4.x browsers would crash on standard-based markup. Even after the really serious problems were cleared up in IE5.x, they still used their old tricks. And now, damn them, that 6.x browsers have been available for only a year or so, they haven't redesigned all the world's websites to be fully standards compliant (and broken on 4.x and some 5.x browsers which are still in heavy use).
Yep, if anyone's to blame, it's those developers.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Who on earth is running a browser earlier than 4.x?
Me. Lynx anyone? Not anyone around here who uses a shell is there? Also, old Macs - SE, SE30, etc - can dialup, and there are ethernet adapters for them. They make good, cheap, space-saving machines for simple access. Use Nifty Telnet for shell access, older versions of Fetch and Netscape 2.0.
But the important messge here is that:
The web is about content, not format.
Remember this. The whole point to html is that it's a *markup* language, not a *forced formatting* language. The browser takes the content and displays it in the manner of the user's choosing.
This seems to have been lost in the corporatization and control of the 'net.
Remember the good old days? When the web was about content and not about spam and marketing? That's where I live. I don't want to see blinking and flashing and animated ads and popups. If I can't see your content on lynx or with a 4.x or pre 4.x browser, you have lost my eyeballs and any potential to recieve my money. No popups on lynx.
The same goes for html formatted mail (there is a special place in hell reserved for people who send html formatted mail.) If I can't read it in pine, I don't even care what it says. Send me text if you want me to read it. (No web bugs and stuff that way too.)
In short, the goal is to get your content to other people, stop being such control freaks about how it is displayed. Write to the lowest common denominator, be creative with what is available there and you save much time, aggravation and money. -- And I'll be able to see your content.
NEVER FORGET --
The web is about content, not format.
Join the Any Browser Campaign and make your pages 'content enhanced'.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Just as Ford defines what a Taurus or a Focus is and does, so does MS as to what IE is and does. The internet is a celebration of individuality. Everyone has their own 'way' of doing things.
Particularly Microsoft. I applaud their attempts to encourage individuality by setting their own standards. This proves that Bill Gates loves us all (I think).
The Internet didn't become what it was today through standardization- thank God that pesky TCP/IP plan never took off.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
However, when the HTML is standard, it's a bug in the browser, which needs to be addressed.
Your logic is flawless, but notice where you're left now.
The browser is branded buggy and non-compliant.
Say the browser is IE 4 or Netscape 4.
Great - the browser creators come out with a new version of the browser that fixes those bugs.
IE 6 and Netscape 6 are in greater compliance with standardized HTML 4.01, CSS, DOM, etc.
Now you come to the end of the road:
"Provided by the management for your protection."