In his book "Designing with Web Standards", Jeffrey Zeldman contends that "99.9% of Websites are Obsolete". Why does he make this statement?
The web is basically broken because of the "browser wars" of the late 1990's when the 2 major browser developers Microsoft and Netscape came up with differing flavours of the web page definition language, HTML, in a race to become the browser of choice for emerging web users. We now live with the legacy of this ; web developers have to waste time and effort producing numerous versions of the same web site in order to make their web pages look exactly the same across different release versions of different browsers. This often means that sites carry extra code determining what version of the site will be served to the browser ("browser sniffing"). On top of this, sites are often laid out using workarounds such as tables (which are intended to be used as containers for tabular data) and spacer images (single pixel transparent images) in order to achieve a "pixel-perfect" rendition of the site across browser versions that are often years out of date. This practice (and I've done it myself before taking the time to find out a better way) further bloats code and causes longer download times and therefore more user disatisfaction. Whilst designers and developers continue to work using the hacks that they currently do, the arteries of the world wide web will continue to be clogged by this cyber-cholesterol.
There is also a question of accessibility. Disabled web users such as those with visual impairment often rely on text to speech software such as "Lynx" and "Jaws" for their web browsing. Web developers that use non-standard workarounds such as layout tables and spacer images can render a visually impaired persons browsing experience completely confusing and mostly meaningless as their audio browser reads out a disjointed and disorientating garble of seemingly unstructured irrelevance. The usual response to this accessibility requirement (and it is a requirement in the US for Federal organisations under section 508) is for developers to provide a "text only" version of the site with all graphic navigation and table layouts stripped out. This again can be time consuming and again could rely on browser sniffing techniques.
Accessibility extends beyond the needs of the disabled. I have already commented upon the problems of compatibility in viewing web pages across different releases of the 2 main browsers but this is exacerbated by the existence of a collection of lesser used but still excellent other browsers. The main runners up here are Mozilla, Opera, and Safari (Mac only). There are also many emerging devices such as mobile phones PDA's and even fridges that provide basic web browsing facilities. Many of these appliances cannot display web pages that have been developed for viewing on a PC or Mac in the way the developer/designer intended. Even across desktop computers there are different operating systems that further complicate the situation (eg. Windows/Linux/OSX).
So, in a nutshell, it's a mess. Wouldn't it be amazing and beneficial to all web users if there was a way to ensure that all the meaningful content from web pages could be viewed worked across all browsers, devices and platforms whilst still providing a means to display great looking web designs to those whose browsers could support advanced visuals? Would you be surprised if I told you there already is such a solution and it's becoming increasingly more popular as you read? Well, there is so read on...
What the web needs is a set of standards. Standards help to ensure that systems work efficiently. We have standards for electricity supply (plugs, voltages), standards for driving (pedal arrangements in cars, the Highway Code), standards for entertainment (CD's, DVD's, VHS). I could go on. All these codes ensure that things work together efficiently across similar devices from different manufacturers. It means I can listen to Probot as I drive to the off license and then in the kitchen whilst I make some toast and Marmite without having to transfer the music to a different format. Readers who are old enough to have experienced the early days of home VCR's may recall the bitter dissapointment of turning up at a friends house clutching a 4 pack of Stella Artois (horrible site) and hard gotten and usually extremely snowy copy of the "Evil Dead" on VHS only to find that their parents had inconsiderately invested in the superior but now extinct Betamax machine. At least the beer worked consistently...
A VHS/Betamax type standoff is apparent across the WWW now, except instead of 2 formats we effectively have many. Organisations such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Web Standards Project (WASP) exist to combat this fragmentation and help the web to be healthy.
"The World Wide Web Consortium was created in October 1994 to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability. W3C has around 450 Member organizations from all over the world and has earned international recognition for its contributions to the growth of the Web"
From the W3C site.
For a summary of the main aims of the W3C see their own document the W3C in 7 Points.
"The Web Standards Project is a grassroots coalition fighting for standards that ensure simple, affordable access to web technologies for all."
What both these organisations want is for web developers to use standard forms of web technologies : HTML4 and XHTML for web content and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) for styling the visual appearance of that content. In this way a separation of style from content can be achieved. In practical terms means that browsers and applicances that do not understand how to correctly render the stylistic information described by the style sheets will ignore that infomation and simply display the "vanilla" text content. In this way the majority of the problems described earlier can be avoided. For more information about designing sites using XHTML and CSS see sites such as Evolt, A List Apart, Zeldman's Daily Report and Sitepoint.
Making the change to designing with Web Standards requires a mental shift away from familiar ways of working. Those who have spent a great deal of time and effort learning how to make great looking pixel perfect sites that rely on the hacks and workarounds discussed previously will probably be the most resilient to change. They will argue that it is impossible to make a site look the same across all platforms using standards compliant methods. Understanding that it is no longer so important to achieve this is part of the mental shift; embracing the variations between viewing devices and working with them is part of the new landscape. Detractors will also argue that sites designed with web standards are "boring" and lack visual interest. Sites such as the CSS Zen Garden show that this does not have to be the case.
The standards advocated by the W3C and WASP are not totally perfect. There
are still problems in the way different browsers interpret CSS. Internet
Explorer for instance renders content containing boxes in a slightly different
way to Netscape and Opera browsers. These are teething troubles and as discussed
above should be worked with to achieve acceptable results across different
platforms. As Jeffrey
Zeldman puts it "standards are a continuum of tools and options,
not a set of inflexible commandments"
.
This site is built with web standard compliant XHTML and CSS to show that we practice what we preach. In making the change to web compliance we have acheived some of the following benefits :
To find out about more about the benefits of using web standards in web design take a look at the FAQ provided by WASP.
Implementing web standards represent best practice for nurturing a healthy web.