Google Webmaster Guidelines: Do as I say and not as I do?

[bloxar]

Originally Posted by Narasinha

Well, I care about Amaya, and I care about Opera and Firefox too. I have much less care for IE because I do not use it at all. I cannot use it because I use a Linux desktop system, which Microsoft will never support.

Well, I thought that the topic was about accessibility, so that means the way that is accessible a docuement Object by browsers.
Am I right?

Browsers are the tools used widely by Internet surfers to access document content.
Am I right?

If browsers render throughout its DOM method this documents and people see the same thing in any browser so we are talking about standard methods of accessibility.

As browsers don’t render or use exactly the same method to render a document there is not a Standard Document Object Model yet.

The W3C describes guidelines to archive such Standard Document Object Model but seem that browsers makers do not pay much attention to these guidelines.

So in practice there is not standardization about this topic.

A simple example:

We all agree that in the USA people drive their cars on the right hand (Standard way to drive in USA). I hope you agree with that.

So if tomorrow Tony Blair for some reason become the president of USA and he writes a document saying that all citizens of United State have to drive to the left hand and people don’t care and continue driving on the right, what is the standard in this case?.

What do you say when a French ask to you about the standard way to drive in the United State.

Will you say right or left.

Is not a matter of language if a matter of logic.

We are talking about the Standard way to accesses a document not the standard way to write CSS, JavaScript, or HTML.

Am I right?


And if you say that do not care about MSIE sorry but this is the browser more used by surfers even if I don’t like it or you don’t like it. And site owners, webmaster, developers make sites to be viewed by persons and make money same times and not to be validated for W3C.

Do you get the point mate?

..............

[Webnauts]

At this point I think we are going offtopic. So back to the topic.

Any further thoughts out there?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Did I mention anywhere in this thread that only professional web designers who can build accessible, findable and usable web sites? Maybe someone got me wrong. If someone learned and made experience in professional web design as a hobby, doesn't mean that he can do great web sites as a professional does.

So I don't get the message here... Could it be that someone here feels offended because his site does not validate? :)

To resume, if you can do the same good work a professional carpenter does, what you build is for sure not junk.

If you can do the same good work a professional web designer does, your work is also not junk.

I think you must look for some more sophisticated arguments about this issue. Don't you think?

I've said what I wanted to.

Why you feel it neccessary to be insulting as well as drag another members website into the discussion (go re-read the forum rules webnauts) is certainly beyond me.

Sophisticated? Here, let me dumb it down for you...

My work as a "carpenter" does not have to be as good as that of a professional to be just as useful.

Do you cook? Are you as good as a professional chef? No? It's garbage then.

Do you have grass to mow or plants to tend to? Are you as good as professional landscaper or horticulturist? No? It's garbage then.

Do you drive a car? Are you as good as a professional driver? No? Your driving is garbage then?

Let me type this slowly for you webnauts...

It is not neccessary for someone to be a "professional anything" or an "expert anything" nor is it neccessary to be as good as either one of them in order to create something practical, useful, and desirable.

The failure to do so does not make it garbage.

Being less insulting and arrogant would be a good thing don't you think?

Dave

[Webnauts]

Thanks Dave for your kind comments and suggestions.

And my apologies to everyone who might have felt insulted from my arrogance or from any of my posts here. I sure had so intention to get there if I did.

Dave can you please report the post where I have violated the WPW rules? I would very appreciate that.

[janeth]

I have to disagree with you here Dave. I have a full time gardener that works at my house 5 days a week.

My neighbors are an older retired couple. They do not have a gardener but their yard looks better than mine because it’s their hobby and they love working in the yard.

My gardener may take short cuts or do things they would never do. Because it’s theirs and belongs to them they will take more time to get it right then someone whose only after this weeks check.

There are many times in life where someone that is not a professional can do a better job on a task then someone who is a professional.

Just my two cents.

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by A. Smith

Personally, when I encounter a site that has obviously not been updated in a long time, I just move on. If they can't keep up, then I wonder what kind of service I'll be getting.

This is nice, but irrelivant to most. Only web purists would base thier use of any site or service on this factor. The masses are not purests.

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Why would a more valid website be more relevant?

The relevancy of the SERP"s is so much more important to them than whether a website is valid or not.

Relevancy is the goal for search engine users. Anything else is only valid for a select few.
If you are trying to sell web services, first be relevant, then be validatable.

Originally Posted by janeth

Google looks good in every browser I've ever seen them in and seem to be making a lot more money than me. So who am I to tell them to validate their code?

The only thing missing here is a discussion of the relationship between popularity and validity. lol?

I believe we need to prioritize these factors:

1. Relevance (Has to be, for the click)
2. Catchy/appropriate listing. (First impression)
2. Load time (Quick or they won't read your page)
3. Visualy pleasent/appropriate (or they will leave)
4. Content (Content is king! It sells. Period.)

Where does validation fit in here? Miniscule factor?

Also, how is popularity a relevancy factor?
(Anyone can spam enough guest books and blogs to have a SE beileve it is popular... argh!)
Yet most search engines weigh this heavly.

Impared accessiblity is not a large enough factor for many to consider, except those directly related. Example: Although Alt tags get a heavy application, it is not so much for those with graphics turned off, but for SEO factors.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Do you want to say here that every site that looks good in every browser, is accessible to everybody too?

Only if "everybody" is your goal. Not worth it IMHO. Example: Google reaches most everyody without validation, up-to-date coding methods, and no flash.

Bottom line:

Originally Posted by janeth

A site that validates is not always faster and better then one that does not.

Excellent point. Faster and better sells more, not validation. If dialup support is important, why does the use of (good) flash sell more product?

Though we should all try for validated web sites, we must be careful that the tail does not wag the dog here.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by janeth

I have to disagree with you here Dave. I have a full time gardener that works at my house 5 days a week.

My neighbors are an older retired couple. They do not have a gardener but their yard looks better than mine because it’s their hobby and they love working in the yard.

My gardener may take short cuts or do things they would never do. Because it’s theirs and belongs to them they will take more time to get it right then someone whose only after this weeks check.

There are many times in life where someone that is not a professional can do a better job on a task then someone who is a professional.

Just my two cents.

Actually Janeth, you make my point. :)

I too take great pride and care in my yard and gardening. My lawn, vegatables and flowers. I've hybridized my own tomatos and Iris. I squirrel-proof flower bulbs and don't have to pull weeds in most of my garden without the use of chemicals.

A "professional" could easily look and point out the many "errors" in what I have and haven't done and the way I do it. As a matter of fact, some have.

Guess what... I have a beautiful yard, magnificent Iris, and some really terrific tomatos despite all the errors.

What's so terrible about that?

Dave

[bj]

I'd just be happy if the copy/paste code google produces for us in order to use tools and such of theirs was written as valid code instead of tag soup.

Yes it would be nice if google's own website validated but I care more about mine and those I build for clients.

[Orion]

Google and other se's don't care if the site validates.

What they do look at is good code, if a site is coded poorly and therefore doesn't render properly or at all in certain browsers, why would an SE then provide that as a search result? It would be a very poor SE to do that. Therefore they want the pages to be coded well, (valid works) and to be accessible (why provide results that people can't see / read / hear?).

Browsers are also becoming more narrow in what they allow and don't allow. I believe IE's upcoming release is supposed to be more compliant.

As designers and developers it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to foster best practices by providing clean code, and doing our jobs professionally. Ever had a client who knows a little take a look at your coding? It pays to have well formed code in your sites. I've even had clients that have checked my work at the w3c an I've had to justify the warnings etc. that were there.

Hey doesn't hurt!

[Orion]

oh.. and the SE's are working to update their code.. just takes a LOT longer than most of our little sites to fix. lol

[bj]

Faster and better sells more, not validation. If dialup support is important, why does the use of (good) flash sell more product?

Have any stats to back up that statement?

[briguy]

I have been reading this posting and find it very interesting and I have been trying to validate one of my sites and the majority of errors are from the "google adsense coding" that I copied and pasted...here is my previous posting http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...688&highlight= I just gave up, I can only handle being frustrated and confused for so long..I just figured if you copy Google codes that they would past validations and I would only have to worry about my beginner attemps at webpage design, not a professionally designed coding? Go figure

[greeneagle]

bj:

I'd just be happy if the copy/paste code google produces for us in order to use tools and such of theirs was written as valid code instead of tag soup.

I started wondering if the rush toward AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript + XML) technology such as GoogleMaps is built on have anything to do with validation problems and issues. There does seem that there may be some concern there.

Ken

[bj]

I only write frontend code, so I may not have this exactly right, Ken, but you may have something there. The whole Ajax/Javascript interface is based on DOM scripting, which basically needs compliant code on both the frontend AND the backend to work, or at least that's the way I understand it.

Google bought out an ap pretty recently that was originally developed by Adaptive Path, a very forward thinking organization on the cutting edge of web development, and WAY in the forefront of all things Ajaxy. When Google bought out that ap they also got the coding team-- including Jeffrey Veen (remember all those fabulous articles on Wired when the web was young?) One can only hope that will make a difference.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bj

I'd just be happy if the copy/paste code google produces for us in order to use tools and such of theirs was written as valid code instead of tag soup.

That is what I wanted to discuss here from the first beginning, but I think I did not express my point properly.

Thank you so much BJ for this. I hope mow everyone here will go on discussing from this point.

Originally Posted by bj

Yes it would be nice if google's own website validated but I care more about mine and those I build for clients.

I love you posts BJ. :)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by briguy

I have been reading this posting and find it very interesting and I have been trying to validate one of my sites and the majority of errors are from the "google adsense coding" that I copied and pasted...here is my previous posting http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...688&highlight= I just gave up, I can only handle being frustrated and confused for so long..I just figured if you copy Google codes that they would past validations and I would only have to worry about my beginner attemps at webpage design, not a professionally designed coding? Go figure

Great on-topic post. Thanks for your support.

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by bj

Have any stats to back up that statement?

"Good Flash" must take into consideration the dialup user. Good Flash can make a site more appealing and easier to navigate if done correctly. Both are valuable in converting a visitor to a buyer.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by bj

Have any stats to back up that statement?

Are you asking for stats to show that a site that loads faster and looks good out sells and ugly slow loading website?

[murphypj]

Webnauts said:

And my apologies to everyone who might have felt insulted from my arrogance or from any of my posts here. I sure had so intention to get there if I did.

Webnauts, I think most of us had figured your pseudo-arrogance and mock-disrespect of other posters comments as post-fodder, designed to keep the thread running ( which of course, it did! )

If the elitist directory project fails, you have a promising future as an online poker player to fall back on.....

All in!

PJ

[janeth]

Originally Posted by briguy

I have been reading this posting and find it very interesting and I have been trying to validate one of my sites and the majority of errors are from the "google adsense coding" that I copied and pasted...here is my previous posting http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...688&highlight= I just gave up, I can only handle being frustrated and confused for so long..I just figured if you copy Google codes that they would past validations and I would only have to worry about my beginner attemps at webpage design, not a professionally designed coding? Go figure

It sounds like this alone shows that Google is not concerned with rather a site validates or not.

What is important is that a site has clean code but it does not have to validate to have clean code.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by murphypj

Webnauts said:
Webnauts, I think most of us had figured your pseudo-arrogance and mock-disrespect of other posters comments as post-fodder, designed to keep the thread running ( which of course, it did! )

Then the thread will close here.

Originally Posted by murphypj

If the elitist directory project fails, you have a promising future as an online poker player to fall back on.....

All in!

PJ

If the elitist directory projects fails, I would prefer to have a promising future as on online poker player, instead of a guitar player without a promising future. ;)

Just my 2 cents.

[Webnauts]

Your attention please!

I re-opened the thread, hoping that the storm is over. Any further inappropriate or offensive posts - including threats, harrassment, swearing, prejudice, slander or deliberate insults/name-calling, or other negative remarks about, will be deleted without prior notice, and poster will be reported to WPW admins.

Thanks. :)

[Webnauts]

I found an interview with Google Software engineer Matt Cutts here http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-11-17-n52.html were he said:

"...Google’s home page doesn’t validate and that’s mostly by design to save precious bytes. Will the world end because Google doesn’t put quotes around color attributes? No, and it makes the page load faster..."

Excuse me? Google' home page doesn't validate, and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes? Can't Google save precious bytes with making their code valid, using quotes around color attributes and page load faster? And while their pages don't validate, makes them load faster? Have I probably missed something here?

"...We can’t throw out 40% of the web on the principle that sites should validate; we have to take the web as it is and try to make it useful to searchers, so Google’s index parsing is pretty forgiving..."

And, how can Google take the web as it is, and try to make it useful to searchers? Can someone explain me how is that possible?

[jrb@w3f.com]

I could be wrong, but...

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I found an interview with Google Software engineer Matt Cutts here http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-11-17-n52.html were he said:

Excuse me? Google' home page doesn't validate, and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes? Can't Google save precious bytes with making their code valid, using quotes around color attributes and page load faster? And while their pages don't validate, makes them load faster? Have I probably missed something here?

Why is it so important for color attributes have quotes? Because "it is correct?" and no other reason?

When you figure the bandwidth saved on all their deliveries, it is significant, so I agree. Also, most browsers don't care.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

And, how can Google take the web as it is, and try to make it useful to searchers? Can someone explain me how is that possible?

How? Easy, they have done both. They take it as it is, meaning use it efficiently and it has proven useful. Look at the number of users, their bottom line, their performance in delivery, etc. It is hard to argue with success.

I agree, tho, it would be nice for everyone to comply to "standards", but not even IE complies. Getting Google to comply is like trying to get Microsoft to comply. (BTW, what are the "standards"? I have yet to see a decient definition.)

HTML was designed to be forgiving, to get the information out with minimal requirements. If we try and demand no tables, no font tags, css only formatting, then why not demand properly indented code? I am being facitious only to make the point.

Bottom line: Why does Google not comply?

Answer: because it is not necessary, and because they can, and still deliver massive amounts of content without any noticable errors. Google, like many others realize just how forgiving the net is, and they take advantage of it, as do many web sites.

Perfect code? Great idea, commendable goal. Good target. But to be totally discounted because of it? Not reasonable, IMHO.

If I want to buy a mousetrap online, I only care if I can get the one I want, quickly and easily. I could care less if the code validated. If I was looking for a web site/page designer, then his/her code better verify. But that's me....

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by jrb@w3f.com

HTML was designed to be forgiving, to get the information out with minimal requirements.

XHTML 2.0 will be forgiving too?

Originally Posted by jrb@w3f.com

If I want to buy a mousetrap online, I only care if I can get the one I want, quickly and easily.

Do you mean that everybody can get what they want quickly and easily as you do?

[Tubby]

We realy do need a variety of 'aim for perfection' attitudes. We need to open a web page now and then where the graphics is mind blowing. We need to read words that were so carefully crafted that a concept or promise is instantly brought to mind. . Someone will always lead, or attempt to . . . Without these leaders nothing would progress. High Ideals are a good thing. It is best that those with high ideals realise that not everyone wants to follow. It is best that those with high Ideal demonstrate and show the advantage of aiming high. People follow a good thing.

Nobody leads the way from pushing from behind, but lets face it we all interpate things from the position we stand. If someone shines a light on the front door of the house and we are making the way to the garden shed, Someone might well give them a mouthfull of abuse.

We do need people carrying torches!!
We will shout at them . . (that's the way it is)

[briguy]

I am glad that this thread is back, for a while I thought a "group hug" or a "group slug" was going to happen..anyway with all this discussion about coding, my question is would a site be penalized for having "not to standard" coding..like would a search spider/robot not crawl a site, or give a site a lower ranking...I realized a long time ago that the "big boys play by their own rules" but what about us "toddlers" who are just trying to our own micro space on the net?

[murphypj]

Webnauts wrote:

Then the thread will close here.

Webnauts: I don't think you quite caught the tongue-in-cheek tone of my last post.

I have always read your posts with interest, and have learned much. I genuinely believed that your comments and put-downs were not borne from real arrogance, but from a similar vein of flippancy and mischief... if I'm wrong, please excuse.

As a player myself, the poker reference was a compliment to your ability to "stir it up".

I am an IT professional, tho' obviously not in the web design side, make a few dollars from the poker, but a nice second income from the hobby guitar site, due to regularly updated content, and good 'white' SEO practise. I monitor my code with the many free validator programs, and keep it as clean as I can. Like several earlier posters, it is the inserted code from my affiliate partners ( including Adsense ) which regularly fails the validation.

While I admire those like yourself who have the conviction ( and the time ) to advocate code which is up-to-the-minute compliant with recommended standards, and wish you all the best with your directory, there are many of us who will never feature, because our limited time is best spent adding real and valuable content, and optimising what we have as best we can.

Obviously, if Google were to decide to only feature standards compliant sites, people like myself would have to address this, which would mean less new and fresh content for those in search of information. Isn't that what the web was supposed to be about?

PJ

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by Matt Cutts

"...Google’s home page doesn’t validate and that’s mostly by design to save precious bytes. Will the world end because Google doesn’t put quotes around color attributes? No, and it makes the page load faster..."

The loading time here is fairly negligible, in my opinion. My personal thought regarding his comment about why they want to save precious bytes is that it is more than likely a bandwidth issue. Imagine that they might save only fifty bytes per page (a conservative number pulled out of thin air). How many page views does Google get worldwide each month? Multiply that fifty bytes by those millions of views and I can imagine the many thousands of dollars saved by Google on their bandwidth costs.

There could be one other option that would save them even more bandwidth, depending on the caching of CSS files. If the page were separated into a strict XHTML 1.0 file and an external CSS, would the XHTML file be larger or smaller than the original HTML (v.?) file?
I actually conducted something close to this test at one time (see this WPW posting, though the link in the post is long since dead). However, I don't recall if the file size was very much different. Maybe I will have to do it again for old times' sake.

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by briguy

...with all this discussion about coding, my question is would a site be penalized for having "not to standard" coding..like would a search spider/robot not crawl a site, or give a site a lower ranking...I realized a long time ago that the "big boys play by their own rules" but what about us "toddlers" who are just trying to our own micro space on the net?

I think rating sites that don't conform to a certain specification is a bad idea. Perhaps an icon to indicate a level of accessibility (helpful for blind or other disabled users) might be a good idea.

As far as indexing sites that don't conform to spec's, I can think of at least one option which could create problems. I recently reworked a page that had two table cells, the first containing job titles, the second cell containing names and contact information. A spider (or a sightless user) would encounter first a list of job titles, then the list of contacts, rather than each in pairs as was intended (and as was visible on the original page). Viewed in any number of browsers, the content was just fine.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by murphypj

Webnauts: I don't think you quite caught the tongue-in-cheek tone of my last post.

Hey man, it is anyway snow from yesterday. ;)
And I just lighted the pipe of peace. :)

Lets go on now sharing some cool posts.

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

XHTML 2.0 will be forgiving too?

It better be, because IE doesn't yet comply with HTML1.0 yet.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Do you mean that everybody can get what they want quickly and easily as you do?

Yes, most people buying products and services don't have a clue if the web page meets the standards 100%. That is not what they are there for. Like I said, if I was looking for a web designer, then I would certainly care, but not when I am surfing or buying.

Striving for a validated site is good, but not if this tail is wagging the dog. We still have to produce functionality. Google is a good example of the compromise.

Now, The point that Google hinders others sites due to their bad code? That is definatly not good, and we should complain to them because they are forcing us to use bad code on our web sites. They can do whatever they want on their site, but ours... No.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by jrb@w3f.com

Yes, most people buying products and services don't have a clue if the web page meets the standards 100%.

Don't people with diverse disabilities, users of PDAs or mobile devices, etc recognize that?[/quote]

Originally Posted by jrb@w3f.com

Now, The point that Google hinders others sites due to their bad code?
That is definatly not good, and we should complain to them because they are forcing us to use bad code on our web sites. They can do whatever they want on their site, but ours... No.

That is what I was about from the first beginning! :)

[briguy]

Sorry about that should have proofread before I posted...
So what can be done..do we have to "google bomb" Google with the words "hypocrite" to get results? How do we complain to them about the hypoprocisy of the coding

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by briguy

Webnauts wrote That is what I was about from the first beginning! :)
So what can be done..do we have to "google bomb" Google with the words "hypocrite" to get results?

Sorry, but I don't get your point here.

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by briguy

Sorry about that should have proofread before I posted...
So what can be done..do we have to "google bomb" Google with the words "hypocrite" to get results? How do we complain to them about the hypoprocisy of the coding

I don't belive they are hypocrits. They are quite decient in that they don't penialize your ranking due to poor html coding. If it is readable, they extract what they can for thier decisions, the rest they seem to ignore. This is just like what HTML was all about in the beginning.

The fact they have us use non-compliant code on our web pages, like they have on theirs is rude. We should complain in a professional manner. (We ARE professionals, right?)

[briguy]

Good point! so how do we complain in a professional manner? My "google bomb" remark was my attempt at humor, sorry

[greeneagle]

"The fact they have us use non-compliant code on our web pages, like they have on theirs is rude. We should complain in a professional manner. (We ARE professionals, right?)"

Sometimes demand (ie. AJAX and XAJAX developments) may lead the path when current standards are inadequate.

I am seeing a real resurgence in javascript coding.

Do you really want javascript turned off on your browser now?

I know it's another damn "Chicken or Egg, first" question, but it seems to me that demand has always led standards here.

I don't see that as; "the tail wagging the dog", in this case at all.

In developmental technologies, it is not at all uncommon that the chicken runs down the path before the egg can.

Ken

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by briguy

Good point! so how do we complain in a professional matter?

I would like to ask that too. Good point.

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Sometimes demand (ie. AJAX and XAJAX developments) may lead the path when current standards are inadequate.

I am seeing a real resurgence in javascript coding.

Do you really want javascript turned off on your browser now?

I know it's another damn "Chicken or Egg, first" question, but it seems to me that demand has always led standards here.

I don't see that as; "the tail wagging the dog", in this case at all.

In developmental technologies, it is not at all uncommon that the chicken runs down the path before the egg can.

Ken

I don't see what this has to do with what I was talking about. Maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe it is all so out of context that you were misled.

1. Bad code that Google gives us to run on our pages, like they run bad code on thier pages is rude. Just because they ignore the so-called standards doesn't mean we should be forced to.

2. Tail wagging the dog was in reference to demanding that nothing be included or considered unless it was 100% compliant and validated.

How does AJAX fit into this?
Wheres the chicken, or the egg discussion in my postings?

Why would I turn off my browser javascript?

Sorry, but I don't understand your remarks to my quoted posting.

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by briguy

Good point! so how do we complain in a professional manner? My "google bomb" remark was my attempt at humor, sorry

Point made. :)

Getting Google to become compliant is about as easy as getting IE complient. We can complain alot, but I doubt it will do anything except provide a vent for our frustration.

We SHOULD complain tho, so they see that we are being done a disservice. Maybe someday......

[greeneagle]

jrb,

I brought up the subject of GOOG not issuing compliant code in another thread and am suggesting reasons along an advancing technological path which seems to be integrating multiple technologies together in developmental code that creates a better user interaction and experience.

GoogleMaps is the core example in 2 threads here.

Again, many times developmental science (R&D) many times leads any governing entity's attempt at mapping out rules.

I was simply stating that this is quite natural on many technological forefronts.

When that does occur, it is not; "the tail wagging the dog"!

Rarely do more than one entity give birth to the same technology or new usage of existing technologies, simultaneously, and there is simply no need for "standards" until other players enter the field.

Ken

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by jrb@w3f.com

Why would I turn off my browser javascript?

For example:

Many users do that to avoid running risks on complications on their machines.

Also, government and other employees are required to disable this feature, for security or other reasons.

[greeneagle]

Webnauts,

The point is twofold here though:

1) Haven't most of the security issues been solved there?

2) Newer Integrated designs are relying on javascript and other technologies that may have had security issues at one time.

12-18 months ago, I thought that javascript was almost in defib, but the recovery has been and continues to be fairly dramatic - IMO.

Ken

[Webnauts]

OK. The issue here is not only concerning users disabling Java Script in their browsers.

How many do so? 8%?

What about cell phone users? How about sight impaired users?

[greeneagle]

That is exactly where we are at!

Advancements in web technology integration may already be outpacing current suggested web standards in design and accessibility.

If that were the case how should GOOG respond internally?

They just aren't going to shut down GoogleMaps development, with what it means in the developmental quest for localization, not when that door holds such a high percentage value of potential ad relevancy!

They are stressing the seams in the fabric - IMO.

Ken

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

jrb,

I brought up the subject of GOOG not issuing compliant code in another thread and am suggesting reasons along an advancing technological path which seems to be integrating multiple technologies together in developmental code that creates a better user interaction and experience.

GoogleMaps is the core example in 2 threads here.

Again, many times developmental science (R&D) many times leads any governing entity's attempt at mapping out rules.

I was simply stating that this is quite natural on many technological forefronts.

When that does occur, it is not; "the tail wagging the dog"!

Rarely do more than one entity give birth to the same technology or new usage of existing technologies, simultaneously, and there is simply no need for "standards" until other players enter the field.

Ken

You changed subjects, and quoted me with coments that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I explained that.

You want to talk about something else, go ahead.

[greeneagle]

jrb,

You seem to be out of synch here.

Have you read the entire thread?

It's all about and all over GOOG not supplying adequate validatable and accessible code and why they may be wandering down those paths at this time, as a leader.

You have lost me completely.

[this is off topic]
What is "www.w3f.com"?
[/this is off topic]

Ken

[jrb@w3f.com]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

jrb,

You seem to be out of synch here.

Have you read the entire thread?

It's all about and all over GOOG not supplying adequate validatable and accessible code and why they may be wandering down those paths at this time, as a leader.

You have lost me completely.

Ken

Losing you seems easy.

Sorry, but the title of this thread is:
"Google Webmaster Guidelines: Do as I say and not as I do?"

My "tail wagging the dog" comment was about being anal about validation to the point you don't get any results by being involved with Google.

On topic was my comments about why they "don't have to be" in their opinion, and why they don't require you to be.

Your comments atteched to my quote was off topic of what my comments were about.

Sorry.... Oh, did you change subjects here?

[greeneagle]

jrb,

Well that happens sometimes. Looks like you are in complete agreement and we just had a misunderstanding.

That happens.

On second thought, maybe I need a little clarification on which position you are taking:

1) GOOG should be Spanked for setting a bad example. 92% of their constituancy should be held back from advancements in interactive web experiences and shareholders should be put on hold while they accomodate everyone.

2) GOOG is on the forefront of technological integration that may be stressing suggested standard's parameters and they will obviously press on (following shareholder and stakeholder demands) not worrying about who is going to invent a "seeing-eye helmet" that simply plugs into a high speed port for the visually impaired enabling cyber-sight.

3) I am an expert! - Integration of all these technologies in AJAX, XAJAX or whatever comes along should have already been subjugated to suggested standards before the technology was ever concieved. Isn't that what standards are about?

Maybe I have over-simplified, but that's where we are - IMO. Obviously their lead will inspire new technologies.

I hope you still have your catcher's mit.

A simple #1,#2 or #3 choice will do, unless you want to present another scenario. The topic title does include "As I do" elements in the equation, right?

Ken

special note - No offense whatsoever is meant for challenged internet users. I simply want to uncover the truth, if possible. It's in your favor too.