Another website on WB and VA Template Framework 3.5.5

[Tez Oner]

Hey,

designed (from logo till layout) and launched a new website on WebsiteBaker and the
VA Template Framework 3.5.5. It's a kinda complex one with some neat SorTable and
Catalogs modules implementation and heavy CSS Styling, webfonts and the good ol'
CaptionSlider for the slides.

Check it on: http://www.crewedyachts-charter.com

Cheerz,

Tez Oner

[dbs]

hi, again a new nice template from you. 

but again not valid...

[Tez Oner]

Hey dbs,

hi, again a new nice template from you. 

but again not valid...

And again... when validated with W3C it will not 'validate'... cause the they are not up to date
with latest browser developments... the websites I build Are... there future proof unlike
most 'technician bot based' systems like W3C.

The CSS3 I code are 'modern browsers proof' and don't show any errors or warnings in frontend...
but some things classes like -moz-border, box-shadow etc...are just to new... but working in all mayor
(modern) browsers. My validation is my experience... but that few warnings are acceptable,
even for professional websites for broad markets and visitors.

But again thanks for noticing,

Cheerz,

Tez Oner

[marmot]

Hi,

first of all of course you can do whatever you want and most of all you can belive what ever you want....

And although I normally do not answer posts like this as I'm comletely sure this will lead to nothing I want to say dbs is right  .

Maybe you want to think about your statemants which say: jquery has errors (stated in an other post of you and of course this could be but not in this case) and w3 validation is not up to date which means tenthousends of coders who try to get failure free pages are wrong but you are right?

Further the javascript errors you got do not necessarily lead to html errors, so you have to take a seperate look at both of them.

The page you are introducing above is about premium prducts so I guess your customer wants premium code on his website too.

Once agin this is just my 5 ct and I wish you good business and yes I like your site.

regards

[dbs]

My posts are often to short.
What i mean are little things like this:

Code: [Select]

Warnung: missing </a> before <div>
Warnung: <hr> element not empty or not closed
Warnung: <br> element not empty or not closed
Warnung: content occurs after end of body
Warnung: <script> inserting "type" attribute
This is easy to correct and should be done.

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.

[Tez Oner]

Hey,

most of all you can belive what ever you want....

thats somethings for 'other forums' lol

means tenthousends of coders who try to get failure free pages are wrong but you are right?

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

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.

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,

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.  

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....

Maybe you could correct these errors/warnings so that the sites you develop will become W3C-valid

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

[dbs]

You are right, a website must working and nothing else.
Maybe you can create a little manual for implementing some nice errors and warnings.