<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why poorly designed websites persist</title>
	<atom:link href="http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/08/06/why-poorly-designed-websites-persist/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/08/06/why-poorly-designed-websites-persist/</link>
	<description>the home of peter chng</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:31:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Chng</title>
		<link>http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/08/06/why-poorly-designed-websites-persist/comment-page-1/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Chng</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/08/06/why-poorly-designed-websites-persist/#comment-126</guid>
		<description>I agree, in principle.  In some way, I&#039;d like to see browsers &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; support validated markup.  However, I don&#039;t think that&#039;s practical, as we can&#039;t expect everyone to fix their markup - nor would I expect these tough rules to suddenly make people switch their minds, as I mentioned in my article.

If browsers suddenly stopped working with invalid code, then, we&#039;d suddenly find a lot of angry users out there who are wondering why sites like MySpace don&#039;t work.  (Maybe that would be a good thing... ;) )

The main problem is that while us tech people understand the need for validation, 99% of the world doesn&#039;t - and that matters.  Overall, I think we need to discourage people from using HTML (when they aren&#039;t willing to spend the time to learn it), by offering good WYSIWYG editors, or for social networking sites, offering a good site builder that doesn&#039;t allow the user to insert their own HTML.  Facebook has done this, resulting a site with a good design that looks consistent - far better than MySpace.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, in principle.  In some way, I&#8217;d like to see browsers <em>only</em> support validated markup.  However, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s practical, as we can&#8217;t expect everyone to fix their markup &#8211; nor would I expect these tough rules to suddenly make people switch their minds, as I mentioned in my article.</p>
<p>If browsers suddenly stopped working with invalid code, then, we&#8217;d suddenly find a lot of angry users out there who are wondering why sites like MySpace don&#8217;t work.  (Maybe that would be a good thing&#8230; <img src='http://unitstep.net/wordpress/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  )</p>
<p>The main problem is that while us tech people understand the need for validation, 99% of the world doesn&#8217;t &#8211; and that matters.  Overall, I think we need to discourage people from using <acronym class="uttInitialism" title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</acronym> (when they aren&#8217;t willing to spend the time to learn it), by offering good <acronym class="uttAcronym" title="what you see is what you get">WYSIWYG</acronym> editors, or for social networking sites, offering a good site builder that doesn&#8217;t allow the user to insert their own <acronym class="uttInitialism" title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</acronym>.  Facebook has done this, resulting a site with a good design that looks consistent &#8211; far better than MySpace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Payne</title>
		<link>http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/08/06/why-poorly-designed-websites-persist/comment-page-1/#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Payne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://unitstep.net/blog/2006/08/06/why-poorly-designed-websites-persist/#comment-125</guid>
		<description>Until web browsers decide to stop being backwards compatible with early versions of Netscape, I canâ€™t see the situation improving. I think browsers should abolish â€œQuirks Modeâ€, because only when people see that their sites are broken, will they (hopefully) attempt to fix them.

And donâ€™t get me started on MySpace! ;o)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Until web browsers decide to stop being backwards compatible with early versions of Netscape, I canâ€™t see the situation improving. I think browsers should abolish â€œQuirks Modeâ€, because only when people see that their sites are broken, will they (hopefully) attempt to fix them.</p>
<p>And donâ€™t get me started on MySpace! ;o)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
