Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freelancr
Please don't pretend you give a fuck about standards. Well done on getting the award, but as it was for the content, why are you so happy to take the credit for a job badly done? The articles pages I just looked at had over 200 errors and has been done in tables. If the BBC managed to revamp their site, considering they have millions of pages, I'm pretty sure anyone can.
Don't take this rant to heart as it isn't really aimed at you, afterall you can't be soley responsible for this entire site. It is aimed at the retards giving out awards to this kinda failboat code.
Web standards is having a hell of a time being adopted by developers, and fuckers like these webby cunts aren't really helping by not taking it into account. This only leads to piss poor browsers, years of waiting to play around with the latest css standard, and having your hourly rate for quality work compared to some WYSIWYG monkey who couldnt give a fuck so long as it works in Internet Explorer.
|
Don't imagine that you know what the fuck you are talking about. I do give a fuck about standards and everything I've done in the last three or four years (freelance and personal) has been fully standards compliant as well as being semantically marked up in an accessible way. I've had heated meetings with my employers on a regular basis pushing towards w3c and 508 compliance - two things that they hadn't even considered before I started there. Fuck, if I didn't give a shit about standards and didn't have regular difficult meetings about them I wouldn't give a toss about your comments.
We don't have the budget of the BBC and as a not-for-profit have to jump through a multitude of hoops to get anything done. We've finally got a budget allowance for a new CMS and design but that is spread over the next three years.
If you look at the HTML of the actual article content you'll see that it is semantically coded and standards compliant. When I first arrived the articles were full of some of the nastiest code you're ever likely to see from MSWord proprietary tags from who knows how many versions of Word, badly nested tags that were a mixture of uppercase and lowercase, a huge mass of empty tags, tags and definitions that don't even exist and other crap that I've since blocked out. Getting a new HTML editor implemented and customized to fit our CMS and the functionality involved took over a year in itself. It took long enough to convince the editors and hundreds of doctors that write and review our articles to stop using Word (there is no truly reliable way to automatically clean Word tags).
I'm fully aware of the errors in the pages and the fact that everything is wrapped in a multitude of tables (bare in mind that the site launched in 1995 though) makes my job a real pain-in-the-arse but it's not an overnight task to fix for reasons that I already mentioned.
When I first started IE6 was the only browser supported. Everything is now required to go through testing in IE6, IE7, Safari (MAC) and of course FireFox (MAC & PC).
Anyways I'm bored with this now, just don't be so stupid as to say that I don't give a fuck about standards when you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and without an understanding of what is actually involved.
As far as the Webby's are concerned I agree and disagree. Let's not forget that the Web is an information medium and a poorly coded site which helps over 150 million parents, kids and teens a year is a hugely more valuable resource than a well coded site that contains shit content and does nothing for anybody. (and it will be better still when it's well coded).
Can't comment on your own adherance to or knowledge of standards as it appears that all you have to show is a single page of text linking to myspace and the like. Well done.