The sin of over enthusiasm

Published on: July 5, 2006 by Paul Boag

I have received a couple of comments over the last few days that have made me think about the need for pragmatism in web design. Many of us are so caught up in our new found enthusiasm for standards based design that we have lost sight of the realities of building websites.

The flush of youth

We have all done it. We discover something new and then become obsessed with it. I was certainly like that when I first read Jeffrey Zeldman's book "Designing with web standards". Suddenly tables were banished forever, everything had to validate and be accessible to the widest possible audience. I found myself spending hours tweaking the site to work in even the most obscure browser. Every site I produced had to be perfect (not that they ever were).

We should always be asking ourselves whether that cool bit of AJAX or extra browser support is actually justifiable from a business perspective.

Recently I received an email commenting on the fact that I encourage the adoption of web standards but neither boagworld or Headscape validate. Around the same time I received a comment on a recent site I launched pointing out that it had some rendering problems in a certain version of Opera.

As I considered my response to both of these criticisms I realised that the people posting these comments were still in that enthusiastic first stage of standards adoption. I on the other hand have been working with standards for a number of years now and have come to accept that the most compliant website isn't always the best website. Let me explain what I mean.

The reality of web design

Take for example the comments about this site not validating. If you actually look at why it fails to validate it quickly becomes obvious that it is because of the Google Ads ads on the site. Now some designers simply wouldn't include the Google Ads if it invalidated their code. However in the real world things are not always that simple. The cost of running boagworld and the associated podcast are not insignificant and revenue from advertising helps to offset these costs. Without the ads this site may well cease to exist and then the purity of the code really wouldn't matter. At the end of the day, commercial reality has to outweigh the desire to produce a well coded site.

The comment I relieved about the lack of Opera support on the WFF site is an even better example. Obviously the desire of every good designer is to support as many browsers as possible, however ultimately testing and bug fixing for different browsers takes time. After examining the log files of the previous WFF website it became apparent that only a very small number of users browsed the site on Opera. When you compare the likely value of purchases made by Opera users to the cost of testing and fixing in this browser, it just can't be justified. There simply isn't a high enough return on investment.

With all our techno babble and enthusiasm for standards it is easy for us to forget that today's web design is primarily about helping our clients make money. We should always be asking ourselves whether that cool bit of AJAX or extra browser support is actually justifiable from a business perspective.

Comments

Comments are for the discussion of this post. If you have other questions / comments then post them to the forum or send me an email

Post by Mark Stephenson on July 6, 2006 8:41 AM

You seem to have two pages for this post, Paul. I added a comment to the other page, which I assume is not the correct one, so have posted here again.

I totally agree Paul.

I don't think I've ever come across a Google page that validates so it's no surprise that their ads don't either.

96% of users browse the site I'm currently maintaining with IE5+ so the majority of testing is done with these browsers. In fact, there are a few quirks when viewed in Opera. As a perfectionist, I do intend to fix this but it's not high priority, as the only time Opera shows up in the site's logs is when I've been testing the site.

In my experience it is a lot easier to criticise and tear down someone's work than be constructive. I'm guilty of this myself. I can spot the one or two things wrong with a site, and totally miss the hundreds of things done right.

To boost your ego, I love your podcast. I've got a lot of useful information from it. Over time I've come to realise you and Marcus are very knowledgeable in your respective subject areas. Something that I am very envious off. So keep up the good work!
Post by john on July 6, 2006 11:33 AM

Hi paul,
I just have to say I have been there on that high with learning new code and 'toys' for the sites as it were. But to aid in the constructive critism you have done an amazing job with the boagworld site. Even tho it may cost you a lot to keep it running I feel that the content is well worth it and to be honest at the end of the day a website is all about conveying a message to the customers / users of the site.

Its amazing that in under a year of finishing my course my old tutor refers to me as his best resource that he has when it comes to the developments etc on the web but the truth is all i am doing is sending a link to him to your site or sites i found useful after visiting them from the links on your website.

He often refers the links to the next generations of students.

But at the end of the day if it wasnt for boagworld.com and you taking the time to post these articles. And to be honest with the browsers becoming more standard compliant anyway designers will be making sites that work in multiple browsers when being created using one or two browsers.

As the only website designer and developer for the company that i work for i find it very useful that you continue to run boagworld.com and im sure that all the users and listeners of boagworld will agree that you have done an amazing job at maintain and providing top grade information to us - so who cares about the code not completely validating, the site runs in numerous browsers without fault and thats all that matters as you will never be able to provide a site taht works in every browser until they all conform to using css compliant coding

Keep up the great work on boagworld.com !!!!!!
Post by Richard Conyard on July 6, 2006 1:26 PM

Paul,
Whilst I agree there has to be a level of pragmatism, I hope you haven't lost all your enthusiasm? Obviously that's not the case otherwise you wouldn't be pushing standards at every opportunity :-)

I guess the detractors of each site need to find time for a little realism. Yes, if it's on your own time and it's without deadline and no commercial return then code to perfection. Otherwise it's time to adopt ivory snow principles. After all whilst Google ads, Webtrends etc. really get on my wick with their poor code, it pays the bills and puts food on the table.

The trick is to maintain a level of standards that will make your life easier in the long term without detracting from the original goals.
Post by joe on July 6, 2006 1:48 PM

I think it's silly to dismiss all validation critics as newbies overly enthusiastic about standards. Roger Johansson, a very experienced web designer and standards advocate, writes regular posts about things not validating (in particular the CSS reboot.) A lot of designers continue to be enthusiastic about standards long after their introduction to it, and if we don't continue our enthusiasm new designers won't feel it's so important to make their sites standards based.

On the other hand I don't think people should waste their time peeking under everyone's hood and should worry about maintaining their own code instead.
Post by Paul Boag on July 6, 2006 1:50 PM

I dont think I dismissed ALL validation critics as newbies. I was just pointing out that it is a pitfall a lot of newbies fall into.
Post by Mark Stephenson on July 6, 2006 2:45 PM

Paul, you are not the only one, John at joshuaink.com is having similar thoughts:

http://joshuaink.com/blog/753/no-i-am-not-bloody-sorry
Post by Paul Boag on July 6, 2006 2:56 PM

Mark, that post rocks! I am not sure I would have put things in quite that way but I love the sentiment!
Post by Steve Kwan on July 7, 2006 7:40 AM

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Paul. Enthusiasm for standards is neither sin, nor a rookie mistake. In fact, I know of a podcast that's been preaching about the unconditional value of such standards for over forty episodes. :)

I fully understand that making your XHTML and CSS valid doesn't always give you a good return on investment - but unfortunately, the same thing can be said for accessibility as a whole. But despite this "waste" of time, haven’t we all decided that accessibility is a worthwhile cause? Could you not say the same thing about Web standards?

There can be tremendous benefits to making valid XHTML, the biggest of which is that you can feed it through an XML DOM or SAX parser. This is a great way to siphon content out of other people's pages if an appropriate RSS feed isn't available. It's also a great way to clean up or restructure your own content through transformations.

But in our case, the biggest benefit to valid XHTML and CSS is less technical and more psychological. If our sites are comprised of valid XHTML and CSS, then we're not going to get people bugging us about how our sites aren't valid XHTML and CSS. If you want to talk ROI, what will your prospects think of your expertise if they attempt to validate your site and it fails? Will they have confidence in your mastery of Web standards? Paul, many times you’ve have mentioned in your podcast that clients have commented on the cleanliness of your website’s XHTML. How can you be so sure that they’re not going to validate it too?

If you’re just a website owner, then people will forgive you if your pages don’t validate and aren’t entirely up to standard. However, if you’re positioning yourself as a Web standards maven, it is absolutely critical that you lead by example – Google ads or not.
Post by Steve Kwan on July 7, 2006 7:47 AM

While we're on topic, maybe we can find a solution to this Google Ads problem.

Does anyone out there on the World Wide Interweb know of a way to include Google Ads or other Web 2.0 content on your page without breaking validation? Is there a site that documents ways to fit this third-party content into Web standards? A List Apart had an excellent article about embedding Flash objects while complying to Web standards; if there's a source of information for other things like Google Ads I'm sure it would be quite valuable.

Also, does anyone know for sure why so many of these third party embeds don't validate? Considering that Google intends for their ads to be included on thousands of sites, I'm surprised they didn't ensure validity.
Post by Paul Boag on July 7, 2006 8:45 AM

We will have to agree to disagree Steve.
Post by Ben Moorhouse on July 7, 2006 1:06 PM

Hey,

It's really cool to see Paul, that you've reached a wiser mindset with regards to web standards.
I think you're right to say that it should be used alongside common sense, ensuring that you dont put clients off working with you, but at the same time explaining what can be done to include users who do not use "standard browsing techniques".
Keep going - just because you're loosing blind enthusiasm, I dont think it's a bad thing.

All the best,

Ben
Post by Paul Boag on July 7, 2006 1:55 PM

I think everybody is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick abit here. Let me be clear: I DESIGN ALL SITES USING STANDARDS. I never do table based desgin. All I am saying is that things like validation is a useful tool to creating good websites not an objective in itself. I am also saying that you dont need to support every browser under the sun. That is very different from what some of you have been accussing me of! ;)
Post by Steve Kwan on July 7, 2006 4:55 PM

Uh oh, I think this might turn into a flamewar. Abort! Abort! :)

But seriously, all standards BS aside: does anyone actually know WHY Google's embeds break standards, or if there's any way to tweak them so that they don't?
Post by Sholom Sandalow on July 7, 2006 7:36 PM

Good article. Standards are a means to an end. If I have to chose between adding a feature for business reasons, and keeping the site standards compliant, out goes compliance. In the end, my focus is always going to be on the business reason for the existence of the site.
Untill all browsers display standards compliant code in the exact same way, it make little sense to worry too much about validating.
Post by Ross Bruniges on July 11, 2006 8:16 AM

Very nice points indeed - there are somethings which just can't be done in standards which we just can't leave out of real world sites (such as google content, I also have a few problems with RSS feeds chucking carrage returns in their hyperlinks - may just be me.....)

I have tried to flip the argument around though and talk about my experiences when dealing with poorly delivered code to me where I work; do the same gripes still apply there???

http://www.thecssdiv.co.uk/2006/07/10/when-to-stop-complaining/

would be interested to hear what you think....
Post by Soup on July 15, 2006 4:43 AM

Kwan is wrong, and I'll tell you why. It's easy to forget what it's like to start the rocky road to learning how to design with standards. In fact, it's so easy to forget, that you start talking like it's easy. Like Kwan does.

Well it isn't easy, Kwan. And a generation of web developers look to folks like Zeldman, Paul, and Dan to inspire, motivate, and instruct. They don't spread over enthusiasm because it can kill a fledgling developer who has a bucketful of bugs and experimenting ahead of him. They don't spread over enthusiasm because the enthusiasm plainly catches without the nitpicks and impossibly high expectations of "the masses."

Remember when Olsson's blog picked apart the CSS book put out by Dan and Molly? Even the experts make mistakes, Kwan, and it makes the youngest and newest among us sleep a little better at night. To hear realistic talk of standards without the shrieks of amusingly zealous demigods declaring "invalidate!" is to hear the sweet sound of silence after the long din.

Most of the comments have confused enthusiasm with OVER enthusiasm. Paul still has enthusiasm, people, but his post plainly derided OVER enthusiasm. The brand that holds the "impossible web standard" over the heads of experts and amateurs alike. Stick to your guns, Paul. There are a jillion up and coming Zeldmans who never need convincing about the beauties and potential of standards. What they need is a breathtakingly realistic approach and a pat on the back for progress.

Maybe Kwan should start nitpicking browsers instead. That’s the real problem with web standards today.
Post by Richard Conyard on July 15, 2006 1:47 PM

Paul,
Don't know whether you're interested, but Andy Budd pretty much came up with the same outlook at the first London WSG meeting (I believe the presentation will be published).
Post by Paul Boag on July 15, 2006 4:27 PM

Great minds think alike, and all that ;)
Post by Steve Kwan on July 19, 2006 9:29 PM

Soup, I never said Web standards are easy. Far from it. In fact, very few things are easy if they're done right.

And I think that's the point here: would you prefer the easy way, or the disciplined way? There are plenty of Web developers out there who seem to prefer the easy way, which is why so many websites wind up being unmaintanable.

By encouraging these "fledgling developers" to be lax about Web standards, you are telling them that discipline isn't important and they should take the easy way out. And to be honest, in this field we don't need more "fledgling developers" nearly as much as we need a bit of discipline.

Yes, people look to Zeldman, Cederholm, Meyers, and A List Apart for inspiration and guidance. And you know what? All their sites validate. But Paul's doesn't. You have to practice what you preach.

(Funny note: Zeldman's site is temporarily broken because in his latest blog entry he used an "hreaf" attribute. But I'm sure that will be fixed promptly and he'll be back to validation goodness.)

If you're so concerned about setting an example for the next generation, make sure you set the right example.
Post by Ben Moorhouse on July 20, 2006 9:15 AM

I think this situation compares amazingly with my 5 year old daughter learning to read - think of a "fledgling developer" as the 5 year old - she has a good 100 - 150 words under her belt, can read sentances and really easy books.
We give her the easy version because put simply, she cant manage War and Peace yet! Trying to teach her to read from that would be impossible; she would get bored and then not bother at all.
Do we really want to force feed the War and Peace of web standards to fledglings so that they get bored and just settle for writing completely uncompliant sites, or do we give them the easy bits, and help them to build on that?
Sorry Steve, but I dissagree completely about forcing strict web standards down our fledgling's throats!
Post by Paul Boag on July 20, 2006 10:32 AM

Looks like myself and Andy Budd are thinking along similar lines.
Post by Steve Kwan on July 20, 2006 6:01 PM

Hey Paul,

Andy's completely right that standards are just a building block to good websites. Couldn't agree more! Standards by themselves don't result in accessibility or aesthetic quality.

The high-level goal of building better websites is built on top of the frameworks we already have, which basically means Web standards. I personally view Web standards as level 1 Web design, and things like usability and aesthetics as level 2. I think too many people try to jump ahead to the second phase without really mastering the first one.

The question here is this: do you view Web standards as guidelines for development, or as a required foundation? I personally view them as a foundation. You might feel differently, but you're not going to convince me otherwise. ;)
Post by Paul Boag on July 20, 2006 6:05 PM

I would agree Steve. Standards are a fundamental foundation that we cannot effectively do your "level 2" without.
Post by Steve Kwan on July 20, 2006 7:06 PM

Well then, we're all in agreement! :)

A podcast for those who design, develop and run websites.

Latest shows

Have your say

Posts by tag

The sin of over enthusiasm

The flush of youth

The reality of web design

Comments

Leave a comment

Additional Information

Interesting links

Supporting boagworld

Speaking and writing