Decorating your site the W3C way
Yes, it’s the newest thing in web design. All you have to do is nip over to the W3C site and find the page with all the W3C Valid icons.
Don’t worry about the License agreement and terms of use:
License and Guidelines for usage of the “valid” icons
Web content providers are granted the right to use the “W3C valid” logo on pages that pass validation (through the use of the W3C Markup Validator) for the W3C technology represented by the icon, and only on pages that pass validation. The icon must be used as a link to revalidate the Web page, thus providing a way to verify the page author’s assertion that it passed validation.W3C License and Guidelines
Just grab a few and then liberally slap them over your page. If your site happens to have the same colour scheme then so much the better but even if it doesn’t, a few strategically placed icons can make all the difference.
You’re now wondering if I’ve gone completely bonkers. Bonkers no, but it seems I’m way behind the times when it comes to little things like truth, professionalism and fraudulent claims.
I have just had a rather depressing conversation with a young US web developer.
This guy wanted a review of his new company site, except of course he didn’t. All our suggestions were thrown out and treated with the contempt he felt they deserved. Why he bothered to ask in the first place is a mystery except of course with the callowness of youth, he assumed we’d all fall over in stunned amazement and tell him what a genius he is. Unfortunately that’s far from the case.
He is one of the current stream of “web experts” who decorate their site with the W3C Valid icons, whether the site validates or not.
Pointing this out usually results in the site owner fixing the page or removing the offending items but this guy, oh no. He actually argues that he can use them to demonstrate what he can do on his client sites and that if the W3C don’t like it, then they can take it up with him personally.
He came up with this argument after noticing on the License agreement that the W3C do not routinely enforce use of the icons. Nice get out clause for him.
The conversation went as follows:
Badge isn’t on the page for you to validate the current html, just available so you know that it is something we do, hence why it isn’t something you can click.Web Guy
If you display the W3c badges then you must meet the criteria that those badges imply. Otherwise you are misleading customers and that is bad business. As Jaybee said, there is no argument about this. You can say that you can do it, but don’t display the badges as if the pages do validate.Responder 1
I reinforced this with:
The mere fact you are displaying the badge means you are stating that the page it is on is valid and in this case, valid XHTML and valid CSS. As such your page must validate and that means making sure no errors are flagged when the page is run through the validator. If it doesn’t validate you cannot use the badge. Full stop.Jaybee
I also posted the License agreement above.
His reply?
They are more than welcome to contact me regarding using icons to advertise validation, on a page that is not valid.
Our clients just see the icon and think it is something they can have on their website. At least that’s what our experience has shown.Web Guy
The arrogance of it!. I repeated that they could have it on their site if the site validated; which his clearly doesn’t. This led me to assume that the client sites wouldn’t either, failing on the same, simply fixed, alt problems and thus falsely displaying the icons.
There is no arguing this. Those icons are are for valid pages only. Professional and honest web developers know exactly what they mean. Using them in this manner is misleading clients, misrepresenting your skills and showing anyone with a clue exactly how untrustworthy you and your company are.
This particular guy is not stupid, for starters he made sure he posted his review request in a protected area of the forum so that it wouldn’t show up in web searches. Everyone else posts in the open Site Critiques section.
At one time I had some respect for his skills and had considered sending some work his way but this attitude leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and from here on in, any recommendations I make for him will not be good ones. For starters, his complete lack of respect for the W3C icons leads me to assume he very likely uses copyrighted images and treats those copyrights with the same disdain.
You would think by now that web developers might have fallen in to the power of the web and realised that bad word-of-mouth spreads like wildfire.
Here beginneth the wildfire……..
Mike Cherim responds:
Posted: February 27th, 2008 at 8:41 am →
Might be Web Ego Guy by the sound of it. As you said, he probably wanted you to oooh and ahhh. If he creates proper sites and wants to convey that to prospective clients, then he would be far better to use text, preferably in headings, or better yet, the
titleelement of a web page. As far as talking-the-talk but not walking-the-walk, I’m sorry, but that’s just BS. It’s not like it’s difficult to make a decent quality site… there’s no excuse.Carol responds:
Posted: February 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm →
He did expect a rapturous reception of the site and ignored the first postings pointing out invalid code and use of the logos. But the trouble is that he does have groupies who think that his farts don’t smell and will use his reasoning - that the logos are mere decoration - and copy his behaviour. He is not a 13 year old turning out this stuff in his bedroom, he is an adult and is fully aware of the legal constraints but is arrogantly ignoring them.
But why would we expect anything better from a “deal maker”?
Rachel responds:
Posted: March 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm →
Oooooo yes! Don’t get me started on this one! I did indeed see the subject of this little rant, but on this occasion decided to watch the proceedings from a distance rather than wading in with my own contribution. As a very wise man is oft heard to say:
The problem with “Web Guy” and his ilk though is that aside from being astoundingly arrogant, the vast majority of clients, and the surfing public at large haven’t a clue what HTML validation is, and don’t really care, and that’s what they count on. Professional and honest developers do know the value of validation, and the licensing restrictions of the validation logos, but Web Guy is neither. What goes around comes around though, and one of these days he’ll go too far - his sort always do - and that’ll be his undoing. Callow youth indeed, and another symptom of youth is a belief you’re invincible. One day he’ll grow up and realise he’s not.