Why Web Standards?
This entry was posted on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 5:40 am.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
For somebody who advocates the use of Web standards, there isn’t much about why exactly I support them on this site.
A recent discussion on the FreelanceSwitch Forums, however, led me to defend the use of Web standards in my work. One designer questioned why, exactly, standards-based sites are such a big deal, when essentially the same visual result can be obtained by using a tables-based site?
His argument was valid, from a purely visual standpoint: one can create a visually appealing website using nothing but tables in their code. People have been doing so for years, and in some cases tables are more versatile for layout and design than valid CSS and HTML.
But, that’s just the problem. He was thinking from a purely visual, print designer’s standpoint. The Web is not a purely visual medium. The decision of going with Web standards or table-based design is nowhere near as trivial as, for instance, the decision of whether to use InDesign or Quark. It’s not just the tool you use, in this case; while results obtained by using tables can be visually similar to CSS-based sites, for many people using the Web, what a site looks like is the least important thing about the site. The Web is purely content-driven, and it’s used by many millions of people, each with different needs. The problem with table-based sites is a simple one: while the site’s content may appear intelligible for many people using standard, desktop-grade Web browsers, those using different browsers—whether screen readers for the visually impaired, mobile phone browsers, or even just people with a larger default text size in their browser—often see a garbled, unusable mess.
There are other benefits to using standards, besides universal accessibility of your site, like cost savings in bandwidth (and, in the long term, development). I outlined it pretty well in my forum post:
While (in some cases) a tables-based site might appear to have the same functionality … a standards-based site beats a table-based site in terms of functionality.
You might be surprised at the number of people using their phones (or smartphones or PDAs) to access the Internet. It’s a sizeable number, and growing. Having websites that phones can easily, quickly read, is becoming more and more important.
And anyway, the point isn’t really whether or not browser makers support the standards. (They do, for the most part, actually. Once you learn a few hacks, you spend no time hacking and most time building great sites, while occasionally reaching into your bag o’ CSS tricks.) The point is to have standards. It could be compared to, for instance, color fidelity in the print world. If it wasn’t for Pantone’s (or any other) color-matching system, Home Depot’s orange would be a different color on every piece of print material. IBM’s blue could be anywhere from navy to purple. But the fact is, Pantone (and, again, others) set up a standard by which inks could be measured, resulting in consistent color results no matter the printer. The idea is similar: with Web standards, no matter what browser a person is using—Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer, or the one built into their mobile phone—the content is presented in a way that’s consistent and sensible, not to mention decipherable. In many instances, it also means that people can control exactly how they view content (RSS readers, for instance), which would be completely impossible in a table-based Web. It has very little to do with actual design and everything to do with content. There are plenty of analogies, though, like standards in building homes, or standards in highway traffic control, or standards in building a Big Mac.
So, no, table-based sites don’t offer near the functionality that standards-based sites do. It’s an outdated practice, building sites with tables, and pretty soon OP’s designer is going to be obsolete.
The Pantone analogy makes sense to other designers, but as I mentioned in the forum post, the analogy could be extended to any field that involves some form of standardization. There are standards and codes for building bridges, houses, skyscrapers, and cars; why not websites?
By building your sites using Web standards, I’m ensuring that your site will look the same in Web browsers of tomorrow as they do today. I’m also ensuring that I’ll always have a job in Web design, honestly. Standards are the way of the present (and the future), and I’d hate to be made obsolete so early in the game by not adhering to proper standards.
This post is filed under Blog. |
6 Responses to “Why Web Standards?”
Leave a Reply
Search
Well said, Vincent. It’s too bad that so many websites are still being structured with tables. Although there’s a small learning curve to switching from tables to divs, I don’t think laziness is an option when our job is to provide the best possible product to our clients. It’s simply a matter of professional responsibility. It’s also rather shortsighted considering that the time spent learning div layouts, proper CSS, and semantic code will pay you back in spades through reduced development costs in the future.
True that content is the most important thing, but I wouldn’t underestimate the value people put in the aesthetics of a website. I think it’s a shame, but many people judge a book by its cover. There are many examples of websites that people love just because the site “looks cool,” not because of quality content, readability, legibility, or any remnant of good graphic design.
Anyways, glad I found your website. Seems like you have some good reading. Adding you to my bookmarks/RSS.
Dickson:
Thanks for stopping by! And thanks for the compliments.
I agree that aesthetics are important on the web—otherwise, I wouldn’t have a job. But in many instances, design matters far less than accessibility of information (for instance, cell phone users, or people accessing a site’s content through an RSS reader).
I’m honestly not sure if I have any readers, as I only update the site occasionally, but glad to know you found what I’ve written so far interesting! If you don’t mind my asking, how’d you find my site?
I agree. No amount of good design will make up for poor accessibility, and—worse yet—crappy content. The accessibility features of the web have long been lamented by designers as the crutch of the medium, where many of our peers complain that the web “breaks our designs,” making it no fun to work with. I think we need to recognize that these features are part of what makes the web so powerful.
But I don’t think any aspect of the final product should take precedence over another.
Good code means nothing if the design is poor.
Good design is compromised if the media cannot be shared reliably because of poor code, development, or production.
Good content becomes diluted if the design doesn’t honor the content.
Found it here.
Yep—the design should honor the content, like Bringhurst says. No question about that.
The whole “breaks our designs” argument from more traditional designers sort of makes me laugh a little bit. The forum post above was aimed at a print designer—a talented one at that—who had argued against the use of standards because it’s easier and faster to use tables, and sites display more accurately when using tables. But the fact is, the web is a completely different medium than more traditional design mediums. Accessibility doesn’t break design; it just adds one more constraint through which we have to work. A great designer can work accessibility and standards into his or her site without sacrificing aesthetics, as we’ve seen time and time again.
Interesting—I spotted that noupe.com article after seeing it in my Analytics account, but didn’t get more than ten or fifteen hits from it. Then, yesterday, I almost got 200. They must’ve been dugg.
Finally someone who can write a good blog ! I loved your post and will be telling others about it. Subscribing to your RSS feed now. Thanks
Thanks! Please do.