Hi Everybody,

Well, guess I need to answer this question, since it's my class.

>Class instructors are telling people to use the XHTML, HTML, CSS, and Bobby
>Approved buttons on their sites? Why do they say you should do this? The
>reason I ask is that I have seen these on a lot of the crits posted here
>lately and I find them totally unnecessary.

Hmmm, do you know how to validate your sites?  Do you believe in Standards? Shouldn't we promote them?

>
>If Bobby approval was truly important to the viewer of your site, it should
>be at the top of the page, not the bottom. Better yet, they could find out
>ahead of time and avoid all the sites that are not bobby approved. If a
>site's content is interesting to me, I am not going to leave just because it
>is not up to the HTML4.01 spec.

WAI guidelines are VERY important.  Not all web surfers have their sight.  Sorry, but that's the plain truth.  Besides that, 
there are some government requirements now, and Bobby is an excellent tool to help web authors comply with them!

>
>Both of those comments assume someone has an idea of what these buttons
>mean. Most of the world has no idea why those buttons are on your site or
>what they might mean.  What value is there in giving someone extra Kbs of
>unwanted data to swallow? Besides the bandwidth, they are using your
>valuable real-estate as well. Perhaps I am missing something here, can
>someone help me out? I could see some reasons for using these buttons, but I
>don't find many people using them for those reasons.

The ONLY reason for using them is to demonstrate W3C compliance and support for Standards.  If you don't know 
what they are for or why they are used, perhaps you should take some classes, particularly the Accessibility class 
offered by the IWG/HWG.  The icons for these are much more valuable than all those "download this plug-in" and 
"buy this product" ever were or will be!

>
>Rene', I am sorry to use your particular crit for my soap box. Don't take it
>personally, I did see you intend to remove the buttons later. But your
>audience is a good example of a group of people who really wouldn't care
>whether this thing is written in HTML4.01 or some abstract form of Martian.
>
>
>
>Now to your real crit...
>
>You might want to consider more visuals and less text if this is for
>designers. The first page is primarily all text. Those pages will be quickly
>accessible (load fast), but I am not sure it is appropriate for the
>audience.
>
>Once again, I apologize to Rene' for using his post as a stepping off point.
>This message is more for everyone else adding those buttons to their sites
>for no apparent reason.
>
>paul
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-hwg-critique(at)hwg.org [mailto:owner-hwg-critique(at)hwg.org]On
>Behalf Of Rene & Will Perry
>Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:24 PM
>To: hwg-critique(at)hwg.org
>Subject: Site for cririque - take 2
>
>
>Sorry, I think I sent my first post in HTML. So...
>
>I am submitting my site for critique as required by HTML2 class. Please note
>that the background sound, prompts, and periods after the validation icons
>were required for the class, and would not remain in the published site.
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wprm/html2/index.html
>
>This site will be a commercial site, geared specifically toward interior
>designers.
>Thank you in advance,
>Rene' Perry
>
>
>
Carole Gay

HTML Writers Guild Online Education Instructor, HTML and Design Concepts 
/
Director, HTML Writers Guild Gutenberg Project
http://gutenberg.hwg.org/

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA