Drawar

Fairly. I'm a total advocate for standards but you never see "because it gets you laid" in the many why-you-should-use-standards lists.

But then again, once it's just how you work, it's no more or less boring then writing wildly invalid code, apart from you can guess what's going to happen before you test-render.

But taking the tone of the linked post, I'm more than happy for individual browsers to go racing ahead with some features, as long as they and other designers only feel right to use them once the features have been standardised and implemented in other browsers. We can still have innovation without another browser war.

Oh yeah, and flash is really entertaining,
Pfft, boring.
Compliance is good and it does get you laid.

Standards are important, hence their existence. You can create great effects with standards so why not combine the two a little more often.

I'm not a standards junkie anymore, mainly because I've realized that a lot of meta-thinking stops you from actually getting things done. Constantly refactoring code, making sure everything is 100% compliant, tweaking the small stuff... all of that to me is counterproductive. Of course I've been writing CSS for a long time now so my XHTML/CSS code is decent off the bat, but if an interface works in the major browsers and I'm satisfied with it then that's usually the end of the story for me. If I forget to encode some ampersands or whatever I really don't care.

But like anything, once you know the rules then you can break them. If you're learning CSS or semantic XHTML for the first time then making sure your code is valid is important for learning and cross-browser testing.

I agree with Mike.

I write xhtml and css all the time - for the day job and for my hobby sites. Provided it works it's good enough. If I have some free time I can go in and tidy things up but generally any errors I have are minor (since I tend to avoid the no-no's through habit).

I would say the average user neither knows, nor cares, about standards so getting the work out there is the most important aspect.

Compliance is boring... It <i>is</i> counterproductive. Heck, websites don't even need to look exactly the same in every browser... you get used to the look of it in every browser (uniqueness?). So, if there is a 1 pixel difference because of a bug, is that really going to screw you? If the code isn't 100% compliant is it really that bad?

After all...
http://dowebsitesneedtolookexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/

Well to be fair, standards exist to provide a measure of control and sanity in a web filled with all kinds of content. In its overarching idea, standards are there to make sure that people will get the same content no matter where they are, or what browser they're using.

You're all right, however, when it becomes simple nitpicking down to the level of the pixel, one shouldn't really bother with it so much.

It's in pushing the envelope that standards change, so I say while you keep an eye out for them for practical purposes such as SEO and web crawlers, don't be afraid to step outside of the box for a while.

There are some projects where standards are best. I tend to think of the target audience and plan a site that way. If I just feel like being creative, then I may cut some corners for the hell of it.

Developing web-compliant websites requires more attention and time. Some of the necessary measures are simple to remember and almost "brainless" to execute like, for instance, remembering to give every image a defined title property.

But working on a standards-compliant, and cross-platform, website is never an easy task. And quite honestly, most customers I work with don't want to pay for that extra workload.

Unless you already have a good project library or a good project implementation rhythm, making a website standards compliant will be a bit difficult. Usually, when in a hurry and in need to create a standards compliant website, I use one of a few sources I have for pre-made, blank layouts, and go from there.

Dozens of developers already wasted countless hours making such layout repertoires available to us, therefore it's a bit silly to try to invent the wheel every time we build a website.

If you don't conform then you just lose customers because your site is to intense for the user to handle. It makes you lose your job and gain a bad bit of business from there in. I would run by the standards because the will make your site work better. I mean, who doesn't want that little W3C button at the bottom of their page.

IMO, compliance is not boring. You can create fantastic designs and STILL be standards-compliant.

Asa - I certainly don't want the little w3c button at the bottom of my page, not because it's not a good target to aspire too but because it's a waste of everybodies time. Nobody cares about standards apart from designers. The average user won't leave your site because it doesn't validate, they will leave because it doesn't work/ is generally a bit rubbish. If the site doesn't follow standards and works then they are happy - look at myspace for all the evidence you need.

As for getting fired... I doubt most management know or care what standards are. They want a popular website that earns them dollars.

I'm not saying it's not something to aim for but as most have said, in the real world it's just not practical. By all means try but if you can't make it 100% compliant then don't worry - there are far more important things in the world.

I may not be in the business, but while I do follow most standards I've learnt that there are a lot of things you can junk because despite it all, it's still going to look the same in every major browser anyway.

The question like most people here ask is, do I want to spend hours trying to comply to web standards or do I want to actually put content on the site that people actually read?

Come on, aside from those of us that designed the site, who's going to see that you're a pixel or 2 off the margin?

Andy Rutledge has a great podcast on this subject.

To quote:

For other crafts and in other industries, standards are used to preserve and refer to quality. Why not in Web craft? This episode examines the gulf between Web standards and the idea of Web craft quality, and how some of design's cultural and information leaders perpetuate a misunderstanding of the medium.

As for me, I believe that one should make a difference according to the nature of the website.
I mean I understand that a company website should be compliant to the standards and be 1)accessible by anyone on any device 2)developed according to the company owner criteria.

But what's the point of a personal website if its author cant have "full" control over it.

I would never blame someone to use Flash or even tables on his personal website.

Since I'm no professional and mainly develop personal layout and design, I dont feel any pressure by those standards, i just like web design so i'm doing my best to come up with good web design and check my website in various browsers and whenever i got time and feel perfectionist, then I run the test and correct "so-called" mistakes.

For example I dont really understand all this fuzz about the sIFR thing. If I want rich typo then I create an image with an alternative text. full stop. At least I know it's gonna work well in my iPhone - which does not support flash, nor load yet another JS. And anyone viewing a website on a text browser will get the alternative text and certainly does not expect anything fancy anyway.