- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:59:45 +0100 (BST)
- To: Alan Urdaibay <urdaibay@eclipse.co.uk>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Alan Urdaibay wrote: > Hello - I'm puzzled - my site was not validated but seems to look OK - In *your* browser. > I've spoken to lots of people who have visited it and not complained. If people cannot navigate as far as the contact details, or just hit the back button immediately, you're unlikely to speak to them. This is a worst-case scenario, but depressingly common in real life. > www.microsoft.com, www.netscape.com and www.javascript.com don't validate either! The first two of those are companies who spent time and effort trying to balkanise and take control of the Web, and may only really cater for users of their own respective products. Don't know about the third, but they might be on a bandwagon for NS or MS, or simply clue-challenged. > Only the first 8 lines of www.dell.com were parsed (for some reaswon) Last time I looked, that was a completely blank screen in *my* browser. That's by no means unusual in seriously invalid sites. > but even these failed! So it's not surprising that www.hp.com failed the test! Do remember: household-name companies expect people to visit *because of* the name and *in spite of* dreadful websites. Can you afford that luxury? Even if you can, do you want to risk being on the wrong side of a lawsuit if your site proves inaccessible to - for instance - a disabled person who cannot use a 'conventional' browser? > It would be very helpful to add some kind of explanation to the w3 site for novices such as myself. I agree. It needs someone to get a round tuit. Meanwhile check the 'reasons to validate' page at http://www.htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/, and also my .sig. -- Nick Kew Site Valet - the essential service for anyone with a website. <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Monday, 10 September 2001 07:32:55 UTC