Just wondered how important it is for advertisers to see that a site passes the http://validator.w3.org and that the W3C XHTML 1.0 icon is displayed?
I'm curious too. I tend to use supposedly "deprecated" formatting tags now and then. I tend to think it's just hubris thinking that you can successfully deprecate HTML tags, ESPECIALLY when they're far easier to use than what you're deprecating them in favor of. There are a LOT of sites on the net that haven't really had their design updated since the 1990's and still get plenty of traffic (i.e. MANY sites by non-tech people - I see them a lot from authors). It would be the death of any browser to just stop supporting them. Who would buy a dictionary that refused to list words that were created before 1900? The web, by its very nature, HAS to be backward-compatible.
My impression has always been that such a distinction was always more for bragging rights among other Web guys... none of the advertisers I've talked with have mentioned it as a concern. YMMV, however.
Most of the link building lists mention that its useful to pass the validator since you can get into several directories themed this way, and into css galleries (if your design is good enough). ----------------------- On a side note I just ran a new design and its validated perfectly which is a first for me.
It just tells that your site can be viewed in all webbrowsers, that you care about your site and the usability for the users.. :] Plus, it separates content from design, wich is very good for the onsite SEO :]
Interesting comments so far. Just noticed that the addthis.com widgit (if that's wot u call it!) doesn't pass validation! Lots of good sites use it but it causes their pages to fail validation.
Run Google through the validation and you'll get your answer. If you're still confused, check out what their stock price is trading at.
Oh come on now, Google's stock price has nothing to do with W3C validation. It has to do with a great business model and great marketing.
Good point but I don't think Google needs to worry about validating their pages lol - too late for that! I was asking from an advertisers point of view, i.e. if you wanted to advertise on a particular site would seeing it had the W3C logo carry more weight?
The question was whether or not advertisers care if your site passes W3C. Where does Google's revenue come from...magical gnomes? They get the majority of their income from advertisers. So, as an advertiser, should you be concerned with the fact that Google does not pass W3C? Absolutely not. Also, the reference to Google's stock price was to emphasize that they are infact successful at what they are doing...delivering relevant Advertising.
Why should it matter? W3C is really picky and can fail for a number of little reasons that really don't matter. I only brought up Google as an example because they don't comply with Standards and they are doing just fine (and so are some of the biggest sites on the web today).
I agree totally rzagelsky. Cypherus made a good point though with regards to ensuring that a page can be viewed in all web browsers. klown also made the point that it is necessary to be listed in certain directories which is attractive for directory owners. Most developers that I speak to tell me it is good practice too.
Many of the W3C errors don't hinder cross browser compatibility. For instance, depending on the DOCTYPE used, you will get an error if you write meta in all caps (META)...whereas it doesn't matter for other DOCTYPE's. Don't get me wrong, I agree that W3C compliance should be common practice. But should that warrant a higher advertising price, no.
www.msn.com Passed validation But, www.microsoft.com Failed validation, 24 errors www.mercedes-benz.com Failed validation, 29 errors www.yahoo.com Failed validation, 37 errors www.ebay.co.uk Failed validation, 218 errors www.amazon.com Failed validation, 1108 errors - Wondering if Amazon owners are aware of that. Or if they care. I did play with the W3C validator to get the answers. It is wrong to look for it on their website as you can be sure they will tell it right the way they want you to learn about its importance to the web. Live statistics can tell different. I have a bad feeling that most of the websites that pass the validator are webmaster related (I said most) I find it helpful but their way of deprecating tags and attributes is what I'd call exagerated at some point. They still have to convince the audience that businesses suffer because of their sites not passing the validator, and that using a <td height="30"> is a bad proprietary thing..
Besides, how many sites will you see using DOCTYPE at all? It's a lost battle, even if W3C could convince people to use them, there are too many quirks to adapt them to existing webpage in a decent amount of time...believe me I tried.