Comments on: Google vs. Web Standards – Part 1 http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/ A resource for Web designers and developers to read about and discuss their craft. Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:29:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Current Events: IE7 and Google | Monday By Noon http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-74 Current Events: IE7 and Google | Monday By Noon Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:01:57 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-74 [...] It’s a shame that Google stuck with their usual practices by ignoring standard and valid markup. It seems a bit hypocritical to me that a search service that concentrates on accessibility features is poorly marked up. At least the search page isn’t using a tabular layout, but font tags? Google can do better than that. [...] [...] It’s a shame that Google stuck with their usual practices by ignoring standard and valid markup. It seems a bit hypocritical to me that a search service that concentrates on accessibility features is poorly marked up. At least the search page isn’t using a tabular layout, but font tags? Google can do better than that. [...]

]]> By: Jon http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-73 Jon Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:41:45 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-73 @Paul: Firstly, no need for name calling. I had stated in the article that it is simply an observation of mine and nothing more. I'm not trying to claim superiority here or anything of the like. Your comment as a whole seems as though you have a strong opinion and knowledge of the subject, but using such language degrades the validity from the start, which is unfortunate. I don't feel that accessiblity has much to do directly with CSS at all. I understand that standards compliancy is not quite common ground yet -- but that is where things are going. As far as 10% of browsers being standards compliant, I believe that is far off. The most widely used browser may not be standards compliant, but its next major release seems to be working towards that. It is great that Google seems to work fine using Lynx, but if you were a first time blind visitor to Google, not knowing what it was, would the purpose of the site be obvious? While it may seem to work fine, it still fails multiple times when validating its accessibility. Please see the following link: <a href="http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=2&url1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F" rel="nofollow">Cynthia Says Report on Google.com</a> My point of this article once again was not to proclaim superiority by any means. I'm glad you felt compelled to comment on the article, but in future instances please refrain from such language. Thanks for posting. @Paul: Firstly, no need for name calling. I had stated in the article that it is simply an observation of mine and nothing more. I’m not trying to claim superiority here or anything of the like. Your comment as a whole seems as though you have a strong opinion and knowledge of the subject, but using such language degrades the validity from the start, which is unfortunate.

I don’t feel that accessiblity has much to do directly with CSS at all. I understand that standards compliancy is not quite common ground yet — but that is where things are going. As far as 10% of browsers being standards compliant, I believe that is far off. The most widely used browser may not be standards compliant, but its next major release seems to be working towards that.

It is great that Google seems to work fine using Lynx, but if you were a first time blind visitor to Google, not knowing what it was, would the purpose of the site be obvious? While it may seem to work fine, it still fails multiple times when validating its accessibility.

Please see the following link:
Cynthia Says Report on Google.com

My point of this article once again was not to proclaim superiority by any means. I’m glad you felt compelled to comment on the article, but in future instances please refrain from such language. Thanks for posting.

]]> By: Paul http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-72 Paul Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:16:35 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-72 Dude, I think you're being a bit of a [****] here. Yes, Google isn't fully standards-compliant, but this is probably due to the fact that about 10% of the browsers on the internet *are*. Google is a public service, and as such it does need to be accessible to the blind, but also to users on IE4 and IE5. Accessiblity is *not* synonymous with CSS. You can kludge up a site pretty well with HTML/CSS, just as you can with tables. However, load up Lynx and check out Google if you think it's really that bad. In pure text-only mode (which screen readers see), the site works just fine. Dude, I think you’re being a bit of a [****] here. Yes, Google isn’t fully standards-compliant, but this is probably due to the fact that about 10% of the browsers on the internet *are*. Google is a public service, and as such it does need to be accessible to the blind, but also to users on IE4 and IE5.

Accessiblity is *not* synonymous with CSS. You can kludge up a site pretty well with HTML/CSS, just as you can with tables. However, load up Lynx and check out Google if you think it’s really that bad. In pure text-only mode (which screen readers see), the site works just fine.

]]> By: Jon http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-71 Jon Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:10:13 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-71 @Christian: Yes, for the most part Page Creator is definately a step forward in the WYSIWYG method of creating pages. It does do a pretty good job for the most part, but you are correct -- it is the simple things like throwing in font tags that bring down its value. Thanks for taking the time to comment! @Christian: Yes, for the most part Page Creator is definately a step forward in the WYSIWYG method of creating pages. It does do a pretty good job for the most part, but you are correct — it is the simple things like throwing in font tags that bring down its value. Thanks for taking the time to comment!

]]> By: Christian Montoya http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-70 Christian Montoya Tue, 07 Mar 2006 06:56:19 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-70 Just wanted to mention: Google page creator is ok until you change the font of text... it puts FONT tags in the markup. The second I saw this I was done with Google page creator. I sent them an e-mail requesting that they please NOT use the XHTML doctype if they don't plan on making the code valid and I never received a response. Just wanted to mention: Google page creator is ok until you change the font of text… it puts FONT tags in the markup. The second I saw this I was done with Google page creator. I sent them an e-mail requesting that they please NOT use the XHTML doctype if they don’t plan on making the code valid and I never received a response.

]]> By: Jon http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-69 Jon Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:25:41 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-69 @astridas: I agree -- I think thats a great idea -- hopefully Part 2 will be more of a conversation piece because I'd love to get as much feedback regarding possible solutions for Google as possible. @Mike: I too found it surprising to see that such a more or less simple layout was coded in such a way. I'm not trying to claim superiority by any means, just bringing up what I've noticed, you know? I've updated the stylesheet for the site so that long url's are basically truncated -- I'm going to look into a more effective solution to implement for long URLs such as that. Thanks to everyone for the great posts -- keep them coming! @astridas: I agree — I think thats a great idea — hopefully Part 2 will be more of a conversation piece because I’d love to get as much feedback regarding possible solutions for Google as possible.

@Mike: I too found it surprising to see that such a more or less simple layout was coded in such a way. I’m not trying to claim superiority by any means, just bringing up what I’ve noticed, you know? I’ve updated the stylesheet for the site so that long url’s are basically truncated — I’m going to look into a more effective solution to implement for long URLs such as that.

Thanks to everyone for the great posts — keep them coming!

]]> By: Mike http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-68 Mike Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:39:58 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-68 Must apologize for the huge URL. At least it doesn't break your layout! Can we use HTML here? Must apologize for the huge URL. At least it doesn’t break your layout! Can we use HTML here?

]]> By: Mike http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-67 Mike Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:37:46 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-67 Wow, after hitting view source on their homepage, you can already see something strange before even looking at the code. 17 lines of code, with a huge horizontal scrollbar = scary stuff. And the amount of validation errors on the homepage pales in comparison to the main news page. Over 1300 errors there - http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//news.google.ca/nwshp%3Fhl%3Den%26tab%3Dgn%26q%3D The validation error page has been loading for many minutes now. I have never seen anything like that before. I find it quite ridiculous that an organization such as google has not done something about this already. Maybe it is something that should be brought to the attention of a larger body such as WASP or the Web Standards Project http://www.webstandards.org/ . An article I found bookmarked relates pretty well to this discussion. Almost three years old, although it seems to be just as relevant today as it was in '03. Maybe after this series is over, you can start on the Yahoo version. http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2003/04/09/yahoo_rebuilt.html Wow, after hitting view source on their homepage, you can already see something strange before even looking at the code. 17 lines of code, with a huge horizontal scrollbar = scary stuff. And the amount of validation errors on the homepage pales in comparison to the main news page. Over 1300 errors there -
http://validator.w3.org/check?.....Dgn%26q%3D

The validation error page has been loading for many minutes now. I have never seen anything like that before.

I find it quite ridiculous that an organization such as google has not done something about this already. Maybe it is something that should be brought to the attention of a larger body such as WASP or the Web Standards Project http://www.webstandards.org/ .

An article I found bookmarked relates pretty well to this discussion. Almost three years old, although it seems to be just as relevant today as it was in ’03. Maybe after this series is over, you can start on the Yahoo version.

http://www.stopdesign.com/log/.....built.html

]]> By: astridas http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-66 astridas Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:49:02 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-66 I hope that when Part 2 of this article is finished, we can link it to Google personnel. I would be really excited if <em>monday by noon</em> would help Google change the style they use and promote healthy code. I hope that when Part 2 of this article is finished, we can link it to Google personnel. I would be really excited if monday by noon would help Google change the style they use and promote healthy code.

]]> By: Jon http://mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-65 Jon Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:05:05 +0000 http://www.mondaybynoon.com/2006/02/26/google-vs-web-standards-part-1/#comment-65 Thanks for taking the time to read through this article. @Michael -- I absolutely hope to come up with some really plausible solutions to help with the situation discussed in this article. It is my hope that the second part of the article will expose some effective ways to improve an already exceptional service in hopes of making it that much more accessible, usable, and efficient. Thanks for taking the time to read through this article.

@Michael — I absolutely hope to come up with some really plausible solutions to help with the situation discussed in this article. It is my hope that the second part of the article will expose some effective ways to improve an already exceptional service in hopes of making it that much more accessible, usable, and efficient.

]]>