You'd think MS could build a valid site in 2006!

[dc dalton]

You know with all the freaking money those clowns at MS have you would THINK they could build a site that validates and works properly in most browsers .... but NOOOOOO!

The new Vista site, it's pretty but oh my god what a mess code wise and its ONLY html 4.01!

Home page has 12 validation errors including this lovely stupidity:

<script src="/library/svy/broker.js"></script>

I mean come ON, a 1st week javascript student knows the type attribute is missing! Alt tags missing, missing attributes and xhtml closing tags on elements in html 4.01!

Then there's this little beauty, their "experience" page:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/experiences/default.mspx

scrolling experience page screenshot (http://davidcdalton.com/asst/ms-screwup.jpg)

What AMAZING coding huh?

Now just to make this page better, how about 46 validation including the old famous "No Doctype Found" and this kind of crap:

body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" marginwidth="0" margi

TOPMARGIN? LEFTMARGIN? OH MY GOD do they have some 12 year old using image ready to build this mess?

How about height attribute on tables? HUH?

this one's classic too:

height="22" nowrap="" dir="ltr"

nowrap="" ....... what in the heck is that? Mutiple uses of IDs on the same page ... ah hell the list goes on forever!

Seriously, how in the HELL can this mutli BILLION dollar company introduce their new product on a website that looks like a first week html student did it? AND they WONDER why no one respects them!

[Vinnie]

I think I can feel the rage from 100 miles away :D

Microsoft's designers need to take a standards-special-ed class but I sometimes wonder if pressure from above keeps their HTML in that style :p

[dc dalton]

I sometimes wonder if pressure from above keeps their HTML in that style :p

Style, WHAT STYLE .... standing across the room and throwing code at the page? That's not style that's DARTS!

[Philky]

I have noticed that a lot of Microsoft's other pages are valid. They have more than any other major company's website that I've seen. (I validate websites when I get bored)

[dc dalton]

I have noticed that a lot of Microsoft's other pages are valid. They have more than any other major company's website that I've seen. (I validate websites when I get bored)

Not from what I've seen ....... go to microsoft.com and yes the main page validates BUT if you go to almost ANY page within the site they are all bad... hell the Main office page has 90 validation errors!

[Philky]

Not from what I've seen ....... go to microsoft.com and yes the main page validates BUT if you go to almost ANY page within the site they are all bad... hell the Main office page has 90 validation errors!

Hmm. I just checked the MSDN pages and I guess I was mistaken. At least they got the homepage. :)

[charmedlover]

Need I remind you that no big company usually validates, even the web orientated ones:

Yahoo! (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com)
Google (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com)
Cnet (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com)
DevShed (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.devshed.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline)

Compared to that Microsoft's webpage validates (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline) (MSN (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msn.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline) does not, but it is closer than any other portal). Apple (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline) is rather close as well.

Of course Opera (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opera.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline) and Mozilla (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mozilla.org&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline) breeze through validation. :p

Overall Microsoft does a much better job at validation than most other web presences their size.

[dc dalton]

OUCH, 267 validation errors on Yahoo! Man time to find new developers!

And how the hell does Google have 50 errors ... there's not 50 elements (or words) on that whole page

[r2d2]

Seriously, how in the HELL can this mutli BILLION dollar company introduce their new product on a website that looks like a first week html student did it?

Because it looks fine and works fine in everyones browser? Not validating really isnt much of a problem. As has been shown, not many other big websites validate.

It is a bit sloppy, but maybe they are big because they focused on increasing income, not making sure their pages validated?

Also, I think you need to take a validation chill pill :)

[Philky]

I never understood how a website could have a lot of errors. HTML is a standard right? If they aren't building to standards, what are the building the website to?

[dc dalton]

Because it looks fine and works fine in everyones browser? Not validating really isnt much of a problem. As has been shown, not many other big websites validate.

It is a bit sloppy, but maybe they are big because they focused on increasing income, not making sure their pages validated?

Also, I think you need to take a validation chill pill :)

Actually no it doesnt render right in Firefox or Netscape (did you even look at the image?)... and as far as me taking a "chill pill" about validation? that isnt gonna happen any time soon so don't hold your breath.

[KLB]

MS-lack of validation concern may be about increasing earnings, but not because validation is harder (it isn't), its about disregard for standards and protecting a monpoly. Plus it is part of their corporate culture that has never put any emphasis on creating stadard code. As a result their development tools that generate HTML are unable to create valid code without a tremendous amount of effort. In order for MSFT to become standards compliant they would have to spend a tremendous amount of resources to redesign what are arguably poorly designed development products.

[r2d2]

Actually no it doesnt render right in Firefox or Netscape (did you even look at the image?)... and as far as me taking a "chill pill" about validation? that isnt gonna happen any time soon so don't hold your breath.

It might not be the same as IE, but it still looks fine to me. Don't get me wrong, I agree people should be building valid pages - I'm just saying don't get too worked up over it :)

As for FrontPage, that is indeed the most horrendous piece of software I have used.

[Mr.M]

dude, chill ! you might get a heart attack.

[Michael]

All the MS employees use Front Page! It's the greatest piece of software obviously since it's made by microsoft.

[KLB]

Another example of Mircrosoft's great web development abilities:

http://www.websitepublisher.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4872

[Shyflower]

First of all Dave, calm down and take your meds before you have a stroke! :rage:

Now why would they use image ready when Front Page is so handy? And as far as them not being able to build a good web site, how can they possibly when they have to validate the thang in IE? :p

[dc dalton]

First of all Dave, calm down and take your meds before you have a stroke!

I don't have any meds to take unless you'd like to share! :rolleyes:

And no I don't think I'll calm down either. Companies with this much power and presence should lead by example, not tag along like the "stupid kid on the block."

[TheOriginalH]

All the MS employees use Front Page! It's the greatest piece of software obviously since it's made by microsoft.

Actually, in days of old (when there was actually a real FP/DW war, that is before the whole world knew the truth), even MS employees weren't fans (secretly of course).

A quick view at the source code of the help files for IE pre version 6...will reveal...Dreamweaver code! Big fat oops on that one.

On the standards thing...let 'em stew. Forget not also that they make up a significant contributor to the W3C themselves. If they wanna waste money by following two directions at once...as far as I'm concerned they can be my guests.

[Shyflower]

Here's another example of corporate idiocy. This site has the absolutely worst use of Flash I have ever seen. In addition, each "click" opens a new window in your browser! Aargh!!! :rage:

Although this isn't a tech site like MS, it is owned by Proctor and Gamble. With all this conglomerates products, you'd think they could hire a decent web designer.

http://www.hugofragrances.com/

[charmedlover]

What I don't get about this thread is that Microsoft is making the closest attempt towards validation among it and its competitors, yet everyone is ranting them?

Of course, Microsoft itself doesn't use FrontPage. :p

[Sagewing]

What I don't get is why so many web developers claim to support standards, but can't understand why big corporations are always behind the curve. It's a no brainer. They are running large systems and it takes longer to switch, not to mention the fact that being standards compliant doesn't necessarily offer any kind of substantal ROI in the near term.

People are so quick to speak of 'corporate idiocy' but those corporations must be doing something right. I am currently working on a government project and one of their web developers was constantly ranting about how they shouldn't use tables. The state endured a painful presentation about all the benefits, but none of those benefits were really in line with their immediate need - to publish information about social services to a large group of people.

What they needed, really, was an easy-to-update system that was adequately accessible, and be compatible with a massive list of target browsers. They decided to do a table-based design because they couldn't find anyone who could support a pure table-less design - only people who would rant about how great table-less designs were. One of the developers recommended that the State simply stop coding for those older browsers and therefore all those people would have to upgrade!

Talk about mising the point.

[dc dalton]

What they needed, really, was an easy-to-update system that was adequately accessible, and be compatible with a massive list of target browsers.

You have just described a tableless, standards complient layout! All of my tableless layouts work fine in IE 5.0 and up, all Mozilla, all Firefox, Opera (for the most part), Safari and NN 7.2 and up! So what's the problem?


They decided to do a table-based design because they couldn't find anyone who could support a pure table-less design - only people who would rant about how great table-less designs were.

I sure don't know why ... they must not have looked to freaking hard!


One of the developers recommended that the State simply stop coding for those older browsers and therefore all those people would have to upgrade!

Then this idiot didn't know what he was talking about UNLESS you are still trying to support things like NN 4x and I can't even imagine why ANYONE would bother!


I too am working on a massive government application (DOD) and they were thrilled to know that the app could be used on PDAs, Cellphones and other alternate devices with nothing more than a stylesheet change! The applauded the fact that a total redesign was really nothing more than a stylesheet change!

Sorry folks you can whine all day but plain and simple NOT building standards based design is nothing but laziness! It is SO darn easy to take the extra few minutes to make it right! Yeah tableless is somewhat of a challenge but the end result is a more functional site / app that isn't "stuck" on a computer screen!

Standards AND accessible sites are the ONLY way anyone should be thinking right now ....

[Sagewing]

You have just described a tableless, standards complient layout! All of my tableless layouts work fine in IE 5.0 and up, all Mozilla, all Firefox, Opera (for the most part), Safari and NN 7.2 and up! So what's the problem?



I sure don't know why ... they must not have looked to freaking hard!



Then this idiot didn't know what he was talking about UNLESS you are still trying to support things like NN 4x and I can't even imagine why ANYONE would bother!


I too am working on a massive government application (DOD) and they were thrilled to know that the app could be used on PDAs, Cellphones and other alternate devices with nothing more than a stylesheet change! The applauded the fact that a total redesign was really nothing more than a stylesheet change!

Sorry folks you can whine all day but plain and simple NOT building standards based design is nothing but laziness! It is SO darn easy to take the extra few minutes to make it right! Yeah tableless is somewhat of a challenge but the end result is a more functional site / app that isn't "stuck" on a computer screen!

Standards AND accessible sites are the ONLY way anyone should be thinking right now ....

DC -

With all due respect (who loves ya?) I will just say this: They ran AD after AD looking for someone who could do the sites in validated tableless format. This went on for months. This is in Louisiana so it's not easy to find good people, let alone those who can do tableless. AND, they have to support all sorts of AOL browsers and other such craziness.

I see what you are saying, but in the end they were not able to find anyone to make it work. So, when someone said 'if we can make it accessible in a way that we understand and can build NOW, why not just do that?'. You really can't argue with that :D

[KLB]

Well being it was Louisiana explains everything. ;)

[dc dalton]

Is there anyone left in Lousianna?

Well if thats the case I can surely understand, I'm assuming they wanted someone locally?

All I'm trying to say is that MOST companies / developers just don't take the few extra minutes to make things right. It's sad because most of it is so simple to implement. Personally I just think there are too many "ovenight wysiwyg wonders" out there who just don't freaking care. IF companies started pressing the issue I think half these knuckleheads would go away (more work for us).

And don't even get me started on the old tables vs css thing, I've argued that point way too many times over at SP!

[Sagewing]

DC - Well, I wouldn't limit it so places where there is a true lack of resources. I think my point is (yes, I will get to it) - there ARE many cases where the current benefits of a xhtml/css/tableless design dont' outweight the investment required to change.

There are product integrations, training, maintenance, and of course personel issues. So, I think that the whole standards discussion should take the realities of business/government into consideration.

Like the tables vs. css - you can always argue that css is better when you are being theoretical. But, in practice, there are many other factors so it's not always the case. Things are changing slowly.

In closing, <div><td></td></span> - there, chew on that :D

[KLB]

At my last job before I went out on my own, my boss always yelled at me for wasting time with making our internal site standards compliant and I had to fight tooth and nail to get basic validation for our external site. Honest to god many managers believe that it costs more money to make a site standards compliant the first time around then it does to try and fix a site later. I had so many arguments with my boss over this and I eventually quit for a related reason.

[charmedlover]

What I worry about is cross-browser compatiblity, which is what standards can give. It naturally goes hand in hand.

What I don't agree with is companies that claim to support XHTML (SitePoint is one) and then they serve it as text/html, which is just tag-soup.