missing doctype

It's probably because the creator used a template.

yes, on the source it mentions a template. how does that work? how come they don't need the doctype etc???

It looks to be a DW template possibly an old version, but I may be wrong.

The lack of an included DTD in the template may just be due to ignorance of their importance.

There's a lot of nasty proprietary coding in that page- shudder - you would probably need the original proprietary template that was used to create this monster if you wished to adjust it, but I may be talking through my hat as I proudly can say that I have very little knowledge of DW and wish it to remain that way .

Better still re-code the entire thing from scratch sans the Dream Weaver.

Just because a site doesn't have a doctype, doesn't mean it doesn't need one.

A quick history lesson from a master might help answer your question larmyia > http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/bonus/render-mode.html

aha! thanks everyone for the words of wisdom. Silly me - I honestly thought you needed a doctype. Roytheboy - as usual EM came through and I finally feel some understanding of doctypes.

Hugo, I am pleased to say that I have nothing to do with this site. although I'd like to start from scratch, it's got nothing to do with me. it's for the company my sister works for, and they paid £3000 for the pleasure!!! the worrying thing is that it has been developed over the last 3 months!!! not 3 years ago!

I think she's going to try to convince her boss to get out of the contract on Monday.

boy-oh-boy.

larmyia

I know. I think my sister's boss was wowed by the spiel. must have been. maddness. absolute madness.

I guess you could have her give the "Why tables for layout is stupid" link to her boss. :oops:

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html

good idea. actually she's asked me to make a list of what's wrong with it (where do I start?!?!). am trying to get work from her boss atm, so hopefully will wow him with my brilliance regarding the horror of this site! well, that's the plan......

They paid how much
blimey just goes to show what a fool I am, didn't realise that was all one had to do fire up a copy of DW turn out some drivel and pocket three grand. makes me wonder why I waste my time striving to learn and adhere to a set of standards really, oh well.

Just give this boss a link to this thread then he can see what a gaggle of supposedly standards orientated developers/designers make of that mess and that imo larmyia would be the best person to sort it out for them

Hugo.

Thought you were meant to be away sunning yourself Roy

Thought you were meant to be away sunning yourself Roy

you got my first smile of the evening! I'll add you to my referee list on my cv?

roy - sunning? not in the uk then! what an awful day.

larmyia

I'm just about to leave

As for the LH site: the world is full to overflowing with people ready to pay a fortune for a heap of [email protected] from the first salesperson to step through the door and charm their socks off! It's exactly the same in the corporate communications and identity field. I've lost count of the number of companies that have paid thousands for 'pretty picture' logotypes that have been thrown together by people who haven't got a clue about identity system development and what a logotype is all about :roll:

...gotta go

Just thought I'd update you regarding this lovely *cough* site. I got the address for the main site and frankly it belies belief. if you have time you should look at it. but beware - my partner and I were so outraged I think my sister regretted showing us. I was horrified

http://www.venueplan.co.uk/default.asp

so...I wrote a list of the most glaring things wrong with the main site and my sister's site (http://venueplan1.oscura.net/businesssites/londonhouse/index.asp). Needless to say it was scathing. However my sister's boss actually sent it to VenuePlan! they are now having a meeting on tuesday with the IT dept of VenuePlan and they've asked me attend at a consultant!!! paid nonetheless. (being paid is still a novelty!). Besides being well chuffed at being asked, I'm rather excited. can't wait to meet the fool who produced this *stuff*

I'm putting together a more comprehensive list, and was wondering if you guys would mind taking a look over it. I don't want to go there looking like a fool.

shall keep you updated on progress.

and I found out that actually my sister's boss paid nearly £4000! and they originally asked for nearly £5000! and if you look at the main VenuePlan site they have some huge hospitality names on there! how I do not know. must have some amazing sales staff.

well, I'd better get back to crime fighting!

larmyia (defender of all well written code!)

Oh dear lord what is this horror and what have we done to be made to look at it

I REALLY like the " If you can see this message then your system appears to block popup windows. Please disable your popup blocking software and then click here." Message.

I did as requested, it pops up a new window and loads the entire site in it - Why? What was wrong with loading it in the window that I opened?

My favorite thing (although by far one of the minor complaints) was on the feedback form when I recieved the error message "The address must end in a well-known domain or two letter country." when I entered an apparetly not well known email address. That's really nice, I confess I did try mildy hard to break it (alas my address is not really ) , but honestly why have such silly validation for a feedback form when it lets though - a clearly made up country extension.

Congratz on being asked along to consult - I recommend taking a bat with a nail hammered though it and introducing it to a soft part of whoever made this at high speed - actually no. Just sticking to the facts about it's awfulness will hopefully be enough, I would hope pointing out about 10% of the things wrong should be enough.

If you post your existing list maybe we can add further things?

Oh briski I can only apologise! the more I look at it the more incensed I get that there are people out there producing this rubbish and getting paid a fortune for it!

well, here's my list. Please note it's only for my reference in the meeting. I know it's long, but I'd appreciate any comments.

thanks!

larmyia

--------------------------------

<html>

• <html> does not validate. (<html> is what is used to write the page).
• No <doctype>. This means that the browser does not know what language the page was written in and “guesses.” The browser’s guess leaves some of the “tags” invalid. (“tags” tell the page what the information is and in this instance how to display it).
• <html> goes between lowercase and uppercase. Although this “works” to a degree, it is poor coding conduct.
• Open <p> and close </p> without any content. Do you want an extra space here? There are correct ways to achieve this if you do.
• Random tags (ie: on all pages there seems to be random </td> tags) that don’t relate to anything. Tags are opened and closed in relation to nothing.
• Font -family and -size tags, background colours, bold in <html>. Why are these in the <html> when you are using css?
• <html> is very, very poor. Seems as though a Dream Weaver template was used. Not only would I expect a site like this to be hand coded, at the very least the code generated by Dream Weaver should be checked by the web developer (if you can call him that!)

CSS

• CSS does not validate (css should be how you style the page).
• Use css for font types/weights/etc instead of putting the same information on the page time and time again. Ie: B&P Catering
• Incorrect css: “darkgray” & “darkblue” are not a colours; should offer generic name for font-family; can’t start a class with a digit; unit after numbers (ie: px); need # for #colours; use correct #numbers for colours.
• Inline css on some pages (ie: “Guest Accommodation”). Why not in external css file?
• Ineffective use of css as still using tables for layout of site and including font information. This makes the site heavy (taking longer to download) and so much more difficult/time consuming to develop and update. Furthermore, this could be partly the reason there is no layout consistency on any page.
• The CSS is some of the worst I have EVER seen and mostly is useless and repetitive.

Layout & Design:

• “B&P Catering”: when you click on the “menu” options it always takes you back to the top of the page. This is frustrating for the user and poor design. This could possibly be a use for the popup window you favour.
• Consistently put the pictures halfway down the page leaving useless white space that could be better used.
• Change layout design for “Guest Accommodation” with scrolling text area and 2 static pictures. Why? Confusing for the user. No consistency.
• The basic look of the website is poor, plain and basic. It does not show Goodenough College in a way that it deserves. A website is the same as a paper brochure. You are selling your property through the website and this does you NO favours!
• <table> used in “C&B” is hard to read. Although this is a semantically correct use of <table>, including font and alignment information for every <td> makes the page very convoluted, difficult to update and heavy.
• Layout disaster – frankly every page, but here’s an example of the “index” page:

 Picture should be flush with the top of the text
 Changing picture distracts the customer from important information and serves no function.
 Large unused space between intro blurb and address
 Address oddly placed on “home” page and NOT on “contact” page OR “location!!!”

• “Contact Us” - no contact information for the College. It’s not clear what information the user does need to include. The subject headings on the right seem unnecessary and is in the wrong order for what this company requires. If you had spent some time researching this company that would become evident quickly. Why not use a drop-down selection box? The whole page could be better laid out.

Miscellaneous:

• Poor use of Language (“Example Conference equipment available” on “C&B” page).
• JavaScript for menu seems like too much for too little.


VenuePlan’s Main Site:

• You can only log onto the Venuplan site if you disable popup blocker. With MS XP most people are now blocking popups. Personally I would not enter a site that I had to allow popups as it’s too time consuming and would then allow popups on my system every time I went on the site. So how many people are going to be put off from even entering the site itself?
• Furthermore, the way they force the browser to not have the usual “menu toolbar” makes it difficult to navigate the site and is really annoying.
• The navigation of the site itself is NOT intuitive, but difficult and confusing for a computer savvy person. How will someone with less experience handle it??? They will leave and go elsewhere.
• You have to ask yourself how many customers are you actually going to get through this site? How many people are going to even enter the site, let alone stay on there if/when they get there?
• In addition, their website does not render in some browsers! I assure you, people using anything other than Windows IE will not use this site as it is so poor in other browsers. Over time Microsoft are losing many users to other browsers, and this is a very real issue. It is as if they have not even TESTED in other browsers. And this is their live site???



Is this site worth the money if it can’t even be bothered to produce good code, to test in other browsers and all the other problems stated?

There is so much wrong with the site developed for Goodenough and the Venuplan site itself. I am horrified. I don’t know who they are using to develop the site, but at a guess it’s a 10 year old child. I can only hope that you are able to get out of the contract as I don’t think it’s worth the amount you paid and frankly they should pay you to display your information.

In addition to the Loooooong list of things you have already noted down I noticed the following...

On the Location page the "CLICK TO VIEW LOCATION ON A MAP" just opens a blank empty mapless window, the C&B Suites page seems to be broken - for a site of this size having dead links it really quite shocking and demonstrates really bad testing.

As you already noticed terrible HTML
lots of <BR>'s
curious mix of cases in tags
tedious repetition of styles
proprietary Microsoft filters
hilarious use of JavaScript to get roll over colour changes on the menu
missing cause for alt attributes on images

Using pt for font sizes - this has poor cross browser support.

seeming over use of divs - ie

<div class='BoldCopy'><H1>Guest Accommodation</H1></div>

I'm sure there is lots lots more as well but I'm off for a stiff brandy to get over the shock.

LOL could you get me one too please briski? I'm still reeling. every time I look at it I get more and more horrified.

I don't know anything about JavaScript but it did seem to be overkill to me as I know I've got this effect with css before.

the C&B Suite was sent to my sister as a different link. I have no idea why they were unable to include it with the other pages.

oh, and when she sent the link to my sis she missed the : after http. when it didn't open, my sis emailed her asking why not, and they told her to do a whole load of cr*p. which of course didn't work. then my sister noticed there was no :

what a bunch of plebians! bring on tuedsay!

larmyia

ps. briski thanks for your additional comments.

well, I had the *big* meeting today and it was very interesting...and confusing. I found out that VenuePlan outsource their web development with "an excellent web development" company (and I quote!).

I'm confused. the guy I spoke with was a geeky, Safari using, hand coding mac man who, by the end of the meeting, agreed with most of my points. Nevertheless he does not see the point in good coding or doctypes. he defended the use of dreamweaver, and in fact thinks it's a great development tool. he was astounded that it didn't validate. not that he seemed that concerned about validation. presentation presentation presentation. that's all he was interested in. he couldn't see my point about the problems with the html or css.

with regards to the popups (when you open VenuPlan's home page) he said that they were running an application ("Floor Plan") which needed the popup. I think he explained it was because there is no way to keep the information, and if a user clicks the back button they lose everything they've done. in addition the application has the file/edit/view/etc menu and it's confusing with the browser menu.

I guess you have to do what the client wants, and I think he has a lot of problems and limitations. but he seems to realise that there are problems (and is equally against the popup window). oh I don't know. I guess I'm naive. and scared. I'm freelancing at the moment, and wonder if I'll have to compromise so much if I work for a company.....

I don't think I made a fool of myself, but I don't feel confident enough to argue with someone who says css/doctypes/valid html & css/etc aren't important.

well, time to bath my chicken pox ridden daughter. oh, it never rains....

larmyia

"css/doctypes/valid html & css/etc aren't important."
Absolutely, they're just a complete irrelevance and have no part in the real world of corporate business web development. We just all live in this fantasy world of standards coding, so what if it doesn't validate, isn't accessible, not semantic, has a DTD etc etc.

We can all present well formed arguments till were blue in the mouth to counter that attitude but it's to little avail whilst that wonderful tag soup redundant outmoded coding will render on a browser we will never win the argument.

What we understand is somewhat rarified and we will generally be misunderstood. My sister worked as marketing manager for various major record companies and had responsibility for commissioning many very expensive sites, her knowledge of web design/development is minimal yet when I argue that much of the code is terrible due to all the criteria we understand she just refuses to give a hoot citing the fact that it "looks fine" and the design company is very big, very expensive, and gets loads of work !! what can you say .

Sadly this industry at the company level is governed by image, are they trendy, do they have all the right buzz words my sister scoffs at the idea of using a freelance designer as she just doesn't believe that they could deliver the sort of project she would commission and of course she wouldn't have nice trendy offices to go visit with loads of hip cool young people around ( oops bitter and twisted, slaps wrist)

You ask whether you would have to compromise much if you worked for a company; well I would say almost inevitably at the least you would have to keep very quiet about your somewhat suspect heretical leanings towards web standards and compliance having said that would you rather be earning a regular wage in an industry you enjoyed or penniless but with your standards intact ?

I'd take a regular job, freelancings too nerve wracking

Hugo.

I take all you say on board Hugo. But I am wondering is there any point going in today? should I have bothered to say his code didn't validate etc if he's not concerned himself? should I just keep quiet? I guess that's what I'm learning. where do you draw the line?

since I quit my job at the end of 2003 to have my daughter we've been penniless. I've just got back into web development this year really and I've discovered this whole new world that I didn't know existed. and I really really believe in it. I'm not saying I expect to make a fortune, but I wanted to make a living doing something I enjoy and am proud of.

I think I'm just disappointed that other people don't see this world I've found. and today I got my first real taste of it. up till now I've been doing sites for little companies where I have complete control over what I produce. after converting my fiance to the wonderful world of css, I guess I didn't imagine there'd be this kind of opposition. he was not even embarrassed about the state of the code/layout/design. and that has shocked me.

welcome to the real world? guess so....



on the upside, the college I was consulting for is very likely going to get me to build them a microsite type thing

that'll tide us over for a little while.

but although I dont' think I'm capable of turning toward the dark side of tag-soup, I wonder if there are any employers who will value my skills??? only time will tell I guess.

I'm going to go and read some more of Zeldman's Designing for Web Standards and enjoy his like-minded thinking... :?

I suspect that he understood what you were getting at and was probably hiding behind an air of nonchalant indifference by way of masking his failings, you may have been more threatening and imposing than you realise, just because you may feel a lack of confidence doesn't necessarily mean that it was evident . armed with that knowledge you probably should continue on but maybe be prepared to work on what they accept from your advice given, it probably was a lot for them to take in it may take time but gradually they may come round to your way of thinking, who knows. Maybe a good approach is to say wouldn't it be great if the code could validate as well, and offer a route towards that goal rather than just stating a series of negative bullet points, work on what is relatively easily achievable.

At the end of the day I don't think it's ever possible to go into a situation and just state why everything is wrong in your opinion, one needs to be prepared to offer solutions and expect to have to compromise, but at the end of the day it is depressing and doesn't surprise me with his attitude.
Don't be afraid to compromise your beliefs they will remain strong and firm, work from within to effect change.

Hugo

Well, now we're into sales.

The key, and probably why noone shouted hosannas after your presentation, is that you talked about features and standards. Nobody but us web hackers care. What the customer cares about are the benefits.

What are the bennies? Why should the customer care?

• Standards: Non-standard code, especially proprietary code is not cross browser friendly. Non-standard code will effectively turn away people with browsers different from the target browser, losing 8–35% of potential customers.
  
• CSS: An external style sheet reduces bandwidth requirements, thus saving money in hosting charges.
  
• CSS again: Makes it easier to maintain a 'look' throughout the site, improving brand perception.
  
• Tableless design: Lower weight of appearance related code saves money on bandwidth costs.
  
• Tableless design: Maintenance and revision take less time with well structured, semantic html+css, saving the client money on future support.
  
• Pick something: talk about the benefits.

As any good salesman knows, you sell the sizzle, not the steak. Go back through your list of *stuff* and write out how each improvement will benefit the client.

cheers,

gary

[/]

if you want some quantification of those benefits check this out http://stopdesign.com/present/2004/sydney/beauty/

And my favourite site for benefits:

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html

Check it out, it's really good.

Just wanted to thank everyone for their comments/advice. I've been on "chicken pox duty." there was a lot to think about.

really liked the site Chris recommended - thanks. some interesting stuff on there.

tph - great site. pity more ppl don't take notice of it.

a lot of food for thought anyway.

thanks!

larmyia

All this has brought the following to mind. What do you tell a stubborn would-be employer who asks you the question, "Google doesn't validate, so why should I?"

Antibland

The thing I'm thinking Antibland, is that if people don't want to see reason, you can't make them. if all of your arguments don't convince them, and they are like "so what. i think it works fine." what the h*ll can you say? if they refuse to see the light (even if you shine it in their eyes) I guess all we can do is wait until browsers *only* accept validated code with all the bells and whistles we know are necessary. *sigh* what a depressing thought.

larmyia

no, just wait until your websites are better and faster to produce. And when the client says, we've changed our mind, I now want the menu horizontally and the left sidebar on the right - and because your html doesn't need to change - you make the changes on the spot in five minutes.

maybe then the other guys will be shown the door.

More like 5 seconds!

Because Google is so popular and gets so much traffic, using valid code (doctype, semantic markup) would lose them thousands, if not millions, of pounds revenue.

If you can justify that your company has as much traffic as Google, then don't bother using correct code.

Just give me five minutes alone with him . . . :twisted:

Granted - as long as it's necessary, and is valid, I don't see a problem with a popup (in this case).

You're telling me that the money they would save in bandwidth would be out-weighted by the money they would lose to near-obsolete browsers? Sorry, but your proof was weak and I don't buy it. If done right they would only benefit. Not only that, but they would take web standards to a place it has never been--the mainstream.

Antibland

Granted - but out of the millions of people who use google every day, how many of them

a) look at the source code, and
b) run it through the validator

I don't follow.

a) look at the source code, and
b) run it through the validator

I don't follow.
Nor do I.

What do you mean, the money they will lose to obsolete browsers?

Correct me if I'm wrong Antibland, but what I think he's saying thp is that he thinks you're saying Google will lose more money validating their code (etc) (and therefore not being accessible to old browsers) than they'd save in bandwidth if they did validate.

or maybe not.......

Ok, I'm confused. Why exactly do you think google would lose revenue if they had a valid page? I can't think of any good reason why this would happen. I think that a few very old browsers will struggle to render the newly validated google page and therefore, the people that use these ancient browsers will possibly not be able to use google. This could, in turn, cause google to lose a little traffic, which, in turn, could lose them a little money. That's the only reason I can see validation huring them. However, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, validating and shrinking their page size would save google millions in the long run in bandwidth costs.

Andy

Andy, I don't! or should I say I haven't thought about it enough to make a judgement either way. I was trying to clarify the situation as you and tph seems to be having separate conversations....where neither knows what the other is on about....

sorry i got involved now

larmyia

larmyia,

Sorry. I'm making a mess of this. I didn't assume that you yourself were asking me this. I just hit the quote key and started typing. :?

thepineapplehead,

Ok, I'm confused. Why exactly do you think google would lose revenue if they had a valid page? I can't think of any good reason why this would happen. I think that a few very old browsers will struggle to render the newly validated google page and therefore, the people that use these ancient browsers will possibly not be able to use google. This could, in turn, cause google to lose a little traffic, which, in turn, could lose them a little money. That's the only reason I can see validation huring them. However, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, validating and shrinking their page size would save google millions in the long run in bandwidth costs.

Andy

Basically, if they had a valid page (semantically structured, and a doctype), it would increase the page size, therefore losing them money in bandwidth.

I'd like to take a crack at this. I think I could make a XHTML 1.0 trans. version that's smaller that the current page.

Antibland

As an example; I downloaded the google suggest page. This has 51 errors, and no doctype. It weighs in at 2.96 KB (3,035 bytes).

I did my best, got it down to 10 errors, using html 4.01, and it weighs in at 3.48 KB (3,565 bytes). I've uploaded it here.

I did my best, got it down to 10 errors, using html 4.01, and it weighs in at 3.48 KB (3,565 bytes). I've uploaded it here.
I don't care about that. I'm talking about www.google.com, the most visited page in google's empire. This is the one I intend to shrink.

Go for it!

talk about a man on a mission. good luck sir, and let us know of your fortunes!

(and if you do it and get loads of dosh, you have to share it with me and tph...or at the very least me! )

larmyia

(and if you do it and get loads of dosh, you have to share it with me and tph...or at the very least me! )

larmyia
This is CSS, not rocket science. I'll post when I'm finished.

Hi honey - I'm home

I've just got back from sunny Portugal and am interested to see how this thread has developed. I was a bit concerned about the way that the end-client's commercial transactions were being discussed so openly on this public forum but that aside, this is a good opportunity to share our thoughts on so many important issues that the thread raises. So here are my comments with the proviso that I don't know the full facts behind the project or companies involved...

I have some sympathy for the supplier of the London House website. Some, but not a lot. The sympathy comes from the fact that the site is part of a web application (albeit a rather simple one), and judging by the supplier's use of ASP, I'd say that they might be ex-Microsoft application programmers who, like many such people a few years ago, realised that the future of application development is in using the web for deployment and run time delivery.

I say this because Microsoft recently tried to get all the developers working on Windows applications to switch firstly from their classic API to WinFX, then to the Avalon API for Longhorn. I'm not a M$ fan so I don't know the finer details but I do know that Windows developers are now switching on masse to developing applications for the web to save having to port their work so many times for so many platforms and OSs.

Microsoft are loosing the API wars big time. This will ultimately affect their core OS sales as users will not need to choose Windows to run their business systems. The writing is on the wall, which is presumably why Microsoft are making such huge and expensive moves to try and be seen to 'own' the internet and its technologies, but that's another story.

I moved into web application development from the design side of things (visual, interface and information design), but many web application developers that are now starting to find their feet in the 'web' market are ex-Windows developers to whom website design was a whole new ball game when they planned out their current system architectures.

A complex web application can easily take a year or two (or more) to develop, test and bring to market as the prime-mover is often one person who does not have the necessary reserves to invest months of unpaid time into a new project without fitting it around other fee-paying work that also demands their time. Add to this another year to get enough 'friendly' clients on board to make a wider marketing push worthwhile and you soon realise that the current crop of established web applications were first planned out many years ago, before the days when CSS was being used for layout (to a noticeable degree), and before the days when many people cared much for W3C standards and validation etc. The internet was a very different place a few years ago - how soon we forget.

Where Venueplan seem to have gone wrong is in not paying enough attention to the interface layer (the browser side of things) early on, and then in not using the time since to develop their presentation skills to a reasonable and modern standard. It's like the crazy pop-up window issue. Some years ago, someone at Venueplan was probably faced with the classic 'back button' and 'refresh' problem that faces most web application developers, but instead of trying to design their way around the problem, they lazily thought: "I know; I'll open up a new window that removes the user's browser navigation buttons altogether."

They didn't foresee that pop-up windows would ever become an internet-wide problem such that browsers would block them automatically; and they obviously didn't design their system with enough flexibility to be able to change things quickly in response to the way that the net changes. That's the crux of their problem. They now have clients using their system but cannot change it to keep up with the times. A classic error of not fully separating out content/data, presentation and application engine.

So like I say: I have some sympathy, but not a lot as they have had plenty of time to bring their presentation skills and system architecture up to date, and should not IMHO be selling this system as it stands. That said, their client-list page suggests that London House is only their second live customer so maybe they're about to learn about their mistakes the hard way! ...or maybe their own site is just out of date (as well as poorly designed).

I don't need to go into the faults with their website design methodology and execution as this has been covered by others, but I will say that regarding the pop-up warning page issue: I am absolutely stunned that a commercial site should be allowed to go live with such an unnecessary hurdle to entry ...gobsmaked is the word!

On the issue of cost: we don't know the full facts so we need to be careful here. Did the client keep changing the goal posts during production? Does the cost include market research, 360 degree pictures and promotion on Google etc? Or conversely, is this cost an annual charge? We don't know, so I'll take a more general view of the wider issue...

Whose fault is it that poorly designed systems and websites are supplied to clients for sums that should get them properly designed systems and websites designed to high professional standards? When you want to buy something expensive for your business do you just walk into a shop and buy the first item you see? Do you not carry out a bit of research first and find out the current market value of the goods or services, and do you not ask around to judge the track record and professionalism of the supplier? Any self-respecting business person would do all of these things, which is why there are so many good websites and applications about that do not cost the earth to buy into.

A good or bad website is an indicator of the owner's professionalism and market standing. If a website is poor and if the client pays well over the odds for it then maybe they will lose custom and fail to survive through a general trend of increased expenditure and decreased income due to loss of clients. This is the natural law of the commercial world. It's not as if the supplier in this case is hiding behind a wall of deceit as their own site with all its failings is there for all to see and judge.

So my point is that if a client organisation allows itself to be suckered into paying many thousands for a poor website or system, then they might just deserve what they get as a consequence. And if the buying decision was made by someone unable to tell a good supplier from a bad one then the client is at fault for not hiring the right calibre of staff. And if the Terms of Reference for the post of the person who buys the services do not call for common sense with regards to purchasing services then the client is again at fault for not structuring their business correctly at an organisational level. Which ever way I look at it, I can't help feeling that in cases like this, the client and supplier deserve each other.

Larmyla - with regards to convincing the end-client about the wrongs of this particular site, I personally wouldn't bother as it will probably be a waste of time. That said, if they are willing to pay you to look after their interests then maybe there is a glimmer of hope after all. So how should you proceed? Well in my opinion, kk5st is of course totally correct in what he says about expressing the benefits of letting you do a proper job with CSS and standards compliant code. Turn the arguments into issues that affect their income and expenditure.

Generally speaking, end-clients could not give a stuff about coding standards, doctypes, css and tables etc. Unless they are running an on-line shop, they only seem to care about what they see when they look at their site running on their computer at work or at home. If it works on their PC and looks colourful with lots of eye candy then they are happy.

They make a decision to trust the supplier (rightly or wrongly) and after that it takes a major fault or incident to convince them that they made the wrong choice. If the end-client represents a larger business then they may never admit their mistake as to do so would mean admitting that they were wrong to hire the supplier in the first place. These sort of people like to go with a supplier that other (bigger) firms have gone with, just so that they can later say "well such-and-such used them so they must be good". Never underestimate the importance of corporate politics and the bad side of human nature when it comes to people trying to secure their positions within a mechanistically structured organisation.

Shop sites are slightly different as a lost visitor is a lost sale and most end-clients realise this. They want to see a return on their investment and anything that gets in the way of this goal will get their undivided attention. This is also the case for legal matters, so the way things are going in the UK with regards to accessibility and the DDA is good news for the disabled; good news for standards-compliant coders like us; and good news for the end-clients no matter what their motivations are (i.e. fear of prosecution or a desire to help others). Bring on the DDA prosecutions, that's what I say. Then we can really start selling CSS and standards compliance as a means to bring order and discipline to our wayward industry.

So, on the wider issue of whether or not we should be spending all this time coding to standards: ignore the current woeful state of our industry. Let the clueless design firms peddle their amateur and commercially dangerous wares to those naive enough to pay for them. Let the end-clients feel good about using suppliers that dazzle with suits, smiles and bullsh*t. But start planning for the coming years of panic. For when the legal time-bomb bites; when the end-clients suddenly wake up to the fact that standards and CSS layouts will keep them out of the law courts; that's when we can make the most of our hard-earned experience and skills.

It will probably only take a few prominent articles in a few popular trade magazines for the full wave of change to start rolling. I subscribe to a magazine aimed at the sort of people that buy web applications and ecommerece services. There have been dribs and drabs of letters and small inset boxes of comment about standards, CSS and the DDA, but nothing on a serious level. Yet!

But beware, for when the new buzz words do the rounds in corporate circles (if CSS and standards compliance don't get overshadowed by XML and XSL), the 'lesser' web firms will also try to convince the clients they they have always worked in this way. But if their work doesn't validate and doesn't work well in a text reader then how are they going to sell themselves to clients that have at least grasped the need for sites to pass these basic tests? That's when the work you are doing now can be used to sell your services for bigger jobs. Our time is coming boys and girls.

Good grief; have I really written all that! Oh well, there's something for you to pick to pieces