Web Standards Now Second Nature
January 15, 2004 | 
19 Comments
It seems like things have been a little quiet on the Web Standards front recently. But I guess no news is good news eh? Or maybe it’s just because I’ve been so busy I’ve not heard anything new?
There sure still are a whole hell of a lot of non-Web standard sites out there!
I’m not sure if it’s because of the perceived lack of news or what, but this week, while working on one of the projects that has been keeping me so busy, I realized that I’d not had a “Web standard” thought in quite awhile. At least not a conscious one.
Today I came to the realization that Web standard design and development practices have become second nature to me. No longer do I think about any other way to design and build for the Web — Web standards is the only way.
For example: This week I’ve been porting horribly non-standard code out of our soon-to-be-retired-and-replaced-by-Movable Type (thank goodness!) CMS down at the hospital. I’ve been cleaning it up and getting it up to snuff without even a second thought.
There was a time I’d have questioned if it was worth it. Or, maybe I’d have had to think about what was the best way to do something. I’d have had more trouble with the CSS or any host of other little things.
Now I just code Web standard code.
Last night I was working on a freelance project in which I was working on only a small piece of a larger application. The application is built with non-standard HTML 4.0. I built my piece out with XHTML 1.0 Strict. The thought didn’t cross my mind until today that there may have been another way to do it.
That’s a good thing.
I realize that there is a bit of a learning curve when working with Web standards, but it’s pretty minimal in my estimation.
I’d go so far as to say that, if you’d never coded a page in your life, Web standards would be easier to learn that what I learned when I started out. Breaking those old habits, that’s the hard part.
I still struggle at times with CSS and the whole separation of style and structure but another realization I had today was that I’ve almost blocked the using of tables out of my mind.
This isn’t always a good thing, depending on how you look at it. While I find that, in general, CSS is a much easier way of developing your presentation layer, there are rare times when it’s just a pain. Until you need to go back and change something — then you’re really glad you used it.
So it’s been a long time coming, but I think my old coding habits have finally gone the way of the dinosaur.
Yea Standards!
Filed under: Web Development
Comments
1. Ryan Parman said:
I totally agree. I find that it’s much harder to teach people how to break their older habits to begin using web standards than it is to teach somebody with a fresh brain.
I don’t even remember the last time I designed anything in tables… it just doesn’t make sense to me anymore. Sometimes I ask myself “Why did I ever do it that way?” But I suppose we all did, because that was the only option at the time…
Posted on January 15, 2004 07:18 PM | #
2. Dris said:
When I first learned about real standards development, I was (relatively) new to web design and development. I’d only coded a few sites, which used the horrid, old-school “standard” of frames and tables. I didn’t have a chance to make these habit when I learned about the real web standards. I definitely think that has helped me grasp the new ways of doing things.
Basically, I had time to digest the techniques of the majority, then learn the better way. Now every time I see a table-based design, I think the designer must be out of his/her mind. It’s a shame; most of these designers are extremely talented, and I’d love to see what would happen if they embraced web standards.
Someday.
I especially look forward to those up-and-coming designers still in their school years. They’ll know nothing but the basics of old-school web design, and will be all the more open to standards.
Posted on January 15, 2004 08:19 PM | #
3. Doug said:
Interesting Keith. This got me thinking. I sympathize completely. Almost to the point where I get caught in the trap of thinking there’s nothing new to the idea of doing standards-based design/development vs. anything else. It’s common sense. Completely logical. And entirely feasible.
But I have to remind myself time and again that not everyone thinks or works this way. There’s still a lot of education left, and lots of leading by example still to be done.
I’m all for moving forward and continued progression of ideas and experiments and for these ideas to become the norm (eventually, however long it takes). But I also want to stay mindful of the fact that not everyone has tasted the KoolAid – or some that have, still don’t like it. I don’t want to exclude them from the party, or turn them off from coming to it by adopting a “duh, of course you’d use CSS for that” type of attitude.
Then there’s the flip side. I never stay comfortable in one place for too long. I like change and sometimes crave it. Standards will evolve, as will the methods of use and its implementations. Depending too heavily on the current standards becoming/remaining the de facto would put me into a rut instead of the groove I want to be in.
Posted on January 15, 2004 08:45 PM | #
4. Keith said:
Doug – You make some very, very good points. I guess it just seems like I’ve reached a plato of sorts that I hadn’t realized I’d reached. Not that there isn’t anywhere to go from here – of course there is – and I guess even though I’m sold, I crave change (and hopefully improvement) as well.
Still, I can acknowledge, like yourself, that there are many folks out there who either haven’t been sold on standards or haven’t been exposed to them. I know many designers and developers up here in the “Land Where Gates is King” that don’t know much about Web standards at all.
It’s fairly understandable and to be honest, there was quite a while where I was right there with them. I mean, the old way works, right? And Microsoft pays well. Still, I can’t help but wonder at how MS (and the myriad of related Web shops that live off MS) would benefit from Web standards.
You, I and many others know these benefits. For those who don’t – all I can tell you now is that Web standards have made my job and life easier.
Because of the way I develop now Web sites I simply work smarter and spend less time at things than I used to.
I still have yet to see the future benefits of much of my work. Maybe I won’t see it – but someone will, I can assure you of that.
But there is still much room for improvement and as you say, “there’s still a lot of education left, and lots of leading by example still to be done.”
Posted on January 15, 2004 10:35 PM | #
5. lolly said:
I’m much the same. Everything I do now is XHTML and CSS based.
I had to do some work on an old-style table-based website the other day. I dived head first into the code (as per usual) and discovered that I didn’t really understand what the fsck was going on. Why did I need that spacer gif? Why didn’t I just use a styled list there? And so on…
I’ve got so used to my stripped down XHTML code that i’ve quite forgotten how to work out a tag soup design. Which is a good thing I suppose :)
Posted on January 16, 2004 06:49 AM | #
6. Jeremy Flint said:
The only time I think about non-standard markup is when I have to make changes to an existing site that was designed/coded B.S. (before standards).
We are slowly converting our past clients to standard markup, be it part of a complete redesign, or just making the change while doing some regular maintenace on the site.
The other day we actually got a client whose site was already written using standards. XHTML Strict even.
Posted on January 16, 2004 06:59 AM | #
7. Jeremy Flint said:
On your comment about the smaller piece of the larger app you were creating, could you have not written it in HTML 4.01 but still have it comply with standards, just for the sake of consistent code?
Posted on January 16, 2004 07:20 AM | #
8. Clinton Barth said:
When I first learned web design, the hardest thing for me to pick-up was building tables, so designing with CSS makes perfect sense for me. Why use a cell inside 4 other spacer cells when you can just specify padding: 10px;. It would take a lot of convincing from a client for me to go back to that.
Unfortunately, last semester I took a web design class at a certain highly-regarded design school in Providence, RI. The class was taught by the person responsible for all of the schools web development, a very talented designer. However, when it came time for a demonstration on how to convert our mock-ups to HTML, he went right for Imageready and the slice tool. Nary a mention of CSS the entire class.
Posted on January 16, 2004 07:23 AM | #
9. Keith said:
Jeremy – I suppose I could have coded it in HTML 4.0 (actually I did as it would validate HTML 4.0)– but I don’t see any benefit there. What I’ve done works just fine with their stuff.
Clinton – While I know there are some great forward-thinking teachers out there, I think that in general what most students learn in Web design programs is way off the mark.
I’ve worked with a few designers and developers who came straight out of very good schools in the last year who were taught to develop like it’s 1997.
What’s worse, is they think, since they come from a good school and have a degree or cert. that what they are doing is right and they way I work is wrong.
They also learn nothing about accessibility, usability, information architecture. To them Web design is all HTML 4.0, javascript, Flash, Imageready or Fireworks and that’s it.
It’s pretty pathetic, but no fault of the student. That is one area, now that I think about it, where Web standards advocates could really focus their efforts. Educating the educators so to speak.
Posted on January 16, 2004 09:12 AM | #
10. Scrivs said:
This is exactly what I was talking about (kinda) in my post a couple of days ago. After a while you start building sites and your ability to simply build a standards based site come so naturally that its instinct. Many people who fear working in CSS don’t really see this or anyone who says that building a standards site is a waste of time. We all know it’s not a waste of time and in fact after a while you start to build them just as fast a non-standard, non-compliant site.
Now if only building beautiful sites came second nature to me the world would be a much better place.
Posted on January 16, 2004 09:58 AM | #
11. Scrivs said:
Sorry about the grammatical errors in that comment. I just wokeup.
Posted on January 16, 2004 10:01 AM | #
12. Jeremy Flint said:
I agree with you Keith about web design education.
Many times, professors will spend about a week teaching code in notepad or something, then crack open dreamweaver (or even worse, frontpage).
That is probably because a majority of “professors” teaching web design are really print designers by trade who “happen to know html”.
I think it has only been recently (last 2 years or so) that you have seen classes offered that deal strictly in web design. Even those, however, are focusing more on flash than standards.
Posted on January 16, 2004 11:08 AM | #
13. Justin said:
I was thinking almost the exact thought… and then I read your post. The manner that most educators ignore standards sometimes makes one feel like a standards loner - as if we’re the only ones who ‘get it’. Someone made a dramatic request to our in-development redesign and with a minor CSS update, it’s all there. I guess once you get going and forget about tables you begin to wonder why talking about ways to make our jobs easier, more effective, and less expensive is viewed as preaching, or as if we are all zealots.
I ‘discovered’ CSS while dealing with clients who’d ask, “let’s see that in Arial. Now Times. Hmm… how about Arial again.” Then you dive a little deeper. And again. Before you know it you just don’t understand why anyone would touch the Imageready slice tool again. It’s about saving money and doing more… that is the profit mantra after all.
Posted on January 16, 2004 12:25 PM | #
14. Rebel Aitch Tee Em El Programmer said:
Good for you, Mr. High and Mighty. I’ll stick to my tables and font tags for now.
Posted on January 16, 2004 01:10 PM | #
15. Keith said:
Rebel Aitch Tee Em El Programmer (aka anonymous coward) - Knock yourself out, and thanks for the insightful comment.
Look, if you want to make an intellegent point in favor of the way you develop – do so. If you are in someway offended by my post maybe that should tell you something.
Posted on January 16, 2004 01:23 PM | #
16. Mike said:
Cool post. I’m new enough to this that, like dris above, I barely even learnt table based design.
Two thiings in the same arena that I realized this past week that gave me some perspective:
Funny thing is I, like you, don’t think twice about web standards. Like most things that are built, websites have to be built up to a standard. It seems that many designers have yet to catch on, and many clients still need to be educated.
Posted on January 18, 2004 02:37 AM | #
17. Kyle Fox said:
Dear Rebel Aitch Tee Em El Programmer,
In defense of Keith’s post I think you are missing the point. I’m not sure, but it seems like you seem to read it as “preachy” which makes me tend to wonder if you read it at all.
I, for one, really appriceate Keith’s real world and practical approach and writing style. I have had my own issues with coming on board with Web standards. It’s site’s like this and real world stories and examples that have convinced me that this is something that can make my sites better and my work easier. That’s all. It’s not a relegion and I think Keith and other Web standards people are just trying to clue everyone into ways to make the Web better and make our jobs easier…What is wrong with that.
Keith, keep it up sir! I love the site and your examples and posts have really helped me. Don’t let the cowards get you down.
Oh and when are you going to write a book? I know I’d love to see it.
Posted on January 18, 2004 01:46 PM | #
18. Twyst said:
The thing that always bothers me is those people who actively fight against using standards, against using CSS rather than tables for layout. I’ve never understood that. It’s like they’ve got their head in the sand, and are afraid to learn how to do something new.
A case in point - This company, DeCloak, makes Dreamweaver templates, and has written an incredible article full of FUD in regards to using tables over CSS. It’s a mind-boggling read. You can look here, and marvel at how scared they are about going out of business because they refuse to change.
Tables Vs. CSS
Now, I’m not saying that “tables are evil” - My personal stance is that tables are not for layout - but occasionally, I have had to do a table-based layout, mainly due to the client’s specific needs. It’s frustrating, though - CSS still isn’t a perfect replacement. I can’t wait for the day that it is.
Posted on January 27, 2004 03:31 PM | #
19. Blair said:
My thoughts regarding the new generation of web design coders who only know XHTML and CSS: you might be at a slight disadvantage. Take my current situation as a prime example: I work for a company that used to build all their sites with tables and font tags etc. I persuaded them to start using W3C standard code to ensure future compatability etc.
My situation is this: I learnt to code using tables and font tags but now happily use XHTML and CSS. With my knowledge of both schools of thought, when it comes to updating pages for my work websites, I can easily chop and change things about with the old table designs and the XHTML and CSS as required.
I wonder if this proves to be a problem for those who haven’t done the tables thing?
Posted on January 28, 2004 03:54 AM | #
Comments are now closed