There has been a debate circulating the internet for a while now about standard compliance and creativity. While standards compliance is a good thing, it alone cannot be used as a measure for success. While it is a large determinant of the quality of a site’s construction, it has almost nothing to do with the effectiveness of a design. For example there are a number of websites that do validate and are utterly horrible, and on the other side of the spectrum there are insanely effectively designed sites that have hundreds of errors. Why is this? The short answer is that it is much easier to tout the effectiveness of something measurable such as validation, where effective design is not.
STANDARDS COMPLIANCE HAS BECOME A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC
Design is hard to sell, and effective design is even harder to show because it looks effortless. Lucky for web designers, there is a little program you can drop a URL in and it will shoot back a message saying all is well. This is why we see so many designers showing off their little badges in footers because talking about what makes their design effective is a much harder thing to do. Many designers have a hard time talking about their work and what makes it successful, so being able to hide behind “validation” means less uncomfortable discussions about design decisions.
Compliance should not be the determining factor for a successful website design, rather a factor necessary to produce quality product. If you don’t agree, just think back for one moment to our recent “web 2.0 aesthetic” trend, and whether it was based on creativity…
COMPLIANCE HAS LED TO COMPLACENCY
Designers and developers have just latched on to the idea that being compliant really matters, and the truth is it isn’t (at least not from a branding perspective). Anyone can make a site compliant, but far fewer people can actually produce a site that is visually interesting, meets the client’s needs, and communicates their message effectively. Because of this the internet is full of websites that really do look exactly like each other. Instead of pushing visual boundaries, designers have settled for producing sites that play it safe and are easier to develop (I’m just as guilty at times too).
Because of this I have almost completely stopped looking at the so called inspiration sites, except for the FWA and other non CSS galleries. While flash may not be appropriate for most websites, the creativity present within these sites is for the most part better than those in CSS galleries. Flash is a much more visual production method that is not as affected by its underlying structure. There is a possibility that this is why we see a lot more effective design solutions in these sites.
I’m not saying that producing a compliant site isn’t an important part of delivering a quality end product however more important details should be taken into consideration first. Not only that, but clients really don’t care because most don’t know what it means anyways. Either way I will be avoiding “standards complacency” by considering standards a production factor, not a determinant of effective design. Effective web design is about much much more.
Agreed. To add further, a lot sites I’ve seen associate with the validation icon as a sign of “my site is accessible” as well, or even “usable.”
Aesthetics, accessibility, usability, good coding are independent factors of a successful web design. A truly successfully site encompasses all of these factors, not substitute one for the other.
As for the flash comment, I think you see more creativity in flash sites, simply because flash isn’t as easily copied. And I think it’s a good thing.
I totally agree with you. I think its more important to be cutting edge than to be completely compliant. Compliant doesn’t in anyway mean good. It’s not our fault that developers can’t create a browser that works well, and 90% of internet users have no idea what they are doing and are still on IE 6.
Being compliant has nothing to do with Web Design.
Being compliant has to do with “correct” coding and is a technical measurement.
Web Design has to do with what something looks like and how it behaves.
They should be completely separated and independant from each other.
I agree with Rob on this one. While your post makes a valid points, in reality standards compliance and visual design are two separate aspects of the web site. Compliant for the most part is focused on technical part and does not feature much of the visual representation. Making sure that the web site you are making works in all the browser is not a choice its a must. Client does not care about designer’s personal convictions and if they want site for any possible user then it must be delivered. Sites should never sacrifice the visual aspect to complaints because there is no need for it.
You make a god point. I certainly went through the “everything must validate” phase. I must admit that I am still in it. Yet I have never put validation ahead of design. If anything, I enjoy the challenge of finding a way to make everything validate. Now there are some cases where it would be totally unreasonable to do this. And for those projects, that’s just how it’s gonna be. But I have to say that the validation movement has done a lot for cleaning up the html crap hole that the web has been. There is still a lot of crap out there, and IE still loves to run this crap, but at least clean code is winning the battle over crap code these days. Overall, I do think that good design will always win over good code, based on the clients perspective. Sometimes, progress can only come from breaking the rules. And once we learn how to follow standards, we should push them to their limits and beyond.
Rob & Boris,
We are on the same page. When I was writing this article, I was actually thinking about how I receive comments on my sources of inspiration series about how a site is not good because it fails a validation check. I was just trying to put into perspective how flawed of an argument this is.
Thank you everyone for your comments, I am actually surprised that the response has been so positive so far. I was expecting a couple of flames for this one…
While I agree that standards compliance is not the only criteria for judging a site’s “worthiness”, let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water either. For the past couple of years now, I make every effort to produce code that validates while faithfully rendering my partner’s designs. The validation is there to help me make sure my t’s are crossed and my i’s dotted and nothing more.
Standards is more than validating the code. As you’ve aptly stated, validating code can be a hideous thing to view. Standards compliance is also about separating the content from the style and behavior so that each element operates in the proper context. That can be difficult to accomplish and is what sets the better designers apart from the uncouth.
That’s my 2 cents :^{>