General Community > WebsiteBaker Website Showcase
Another website on WB and VA Template Framework 3.5.5
Tez Oner:
Hey,
--- Quote ---most of all you can belive what ever you want....
--- End quote ---
thats somethings for 'other forums' lol
--- Quote ---means tenthousends of coders who try to get failure free pages are wrong but you are right?
--- End quote ---
It's your words... ;) I have my own ways to check as I said before and yes clients accept this for
over 15 years now because it's acceptable and also their customers...
I can give you a list of numerous 'big' sites with all kinds of lil 'things' but making good
websites is not about checking if the code is valid... at least not for me. First is... is it nice
then does is work... does it communicate and function well and most of all... do they
generate the needs that proposed... and that they do 95% of the sites I build.
@dbs
--- Quote ---The warnings and the Javascript-Errors makes not good impression.
But if it is not important for you or your clients, i will never say something.
--- End quote ---
Now That I can appreciate! lol.
Cheerz,
Tez Oner
ctec:
First and foremost this is not an attack on you, just my opinion, please have an open mind when reading.
Hey...I just want to add that your sites look great.
I know that WB is open source an they state that "With WebsiteBaker it's quite natural your site is W3C-valid, SEO-friendly and accessible" it should remain that way.
If your going to improve on the WebsiteBaker structure you should really remain true to the statement as indicated on the WebsiteBaker home page. People will look at your site and see which CMS you used to develop and if they go check the validity they will get the errors that are presented here in the forum. When potential WB users/developers come to the WB home page they will see the statement that I mentioned above and maybe they will question why are there so many errors or warnings when it is suppose to be W3C-valid.
I just think that the sites that are being developed with WB and that have modified modules,etc should stay true to the statements presented on the WB home page. This is what makes WB a great CMS, you have the uniform open source code that keeps the structure solid. Maybe you could correct these errors/warnings so that the sites you develop will become W3C-valid.
Just my opinion...
Have a great day. :-)
Tez Oner:
Hey Ctec,
--- Quote from: ctec on July 21, 2012, 07:31:19 PM ---First and foremost this is not an attack on you, just my opinion, please have an open mind when reading.
Hey...I just want to add that your sites look great.
I know that WB is open source an they state that "With WebsiteBaker it's quite natural your site is W3C-valid, SEO-friendly and accessible" it should remain that way.
If your going to improve on the WebsiteBaker structure you should really remain true to the statement as indicated on the WebsiteBaker home page. People will look at your site and see which CMS you used to develop and if they go check the validity they will get the errors that are presented here in the forum. When potential WB users/developers come to the WB home page they will see the statement that I mentioned above and maybe they will question why are there so many errors or warnings when it is suppose to be W3C-valid.
I just think that the sites that are being developed with WB and that have modified modules,etc should stay true to the statements presented on the WB home page. This is what makes WB a great CMS, you have the uniform open source code that keeps the structure solid. Maybe you could correct these errors/warnings so that the sites you develop will become W3C-valid.
Just my opinion...
Have a great day. :-)
--- End quote ---
I agree with most you mention... tho we should not mix some things... there's some 'levels' a website can be
reviewed on like cms, design, user flow, seo etc. And (I'v been a teacher for years) I'm not gonna have to
mention all this things but in general... of course the target is always to make a cross browser/platform, validated,
etc etc... website but some times external scripts and css-hacks just don't validate. But then the most important
is still (and thats a normal thing in the applied works/companies...)... doesn't it work nicely, no(t to much) errors etc.
Usually errors that are really disturbing.. of course they will have to be fixed. As I told before I can sum up a list
of 'not valid' websites, big ones in wordpress, joomla or even tridion ;)
Its not an excuse but just to level this discussion... some people seem to rate an WB site only on W3 validation...
for me thats just a 'part' of the story... and that will always be the difference between media designers/pioneers
and coders. The art is to have the balance....
--- Quote ---Maybe you could correct these errors/warnings so that the sites you develop will become W3C-valid
--- End quote ---
It maybe will done as some sections of the site still need to get live... but as I said it's, lets say prio 4 (of 10) ;)
Cheerz,
Tez Oner
Tez Oner:
Hey,
just passed a post with this validation ;) lol
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=XHTML+1.0+Strict&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.1
Cheerz,
Tez Oner
Tez Oner:
And even a batter one....
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.1
;)
but... been busy with the VA Template Framework... and so far only 14 warnings and most of them
external scripts with 'coded' urls... done by 'big' parties...
Cheerz,
Tez Oner
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version