Why don't big-company sites use valid code?

Written by Adrian Holovaty on October 11, 2002

NUblog asks: "Why is the only reliable source for valid Web pages the single person typing away at home?" That is, why do Web companies -- with dozens of supposedly talented developers and designers -- ignore Web standards, while single-person-run sites (such as this one) are completely capable of creating valid code?

"Frankly, this is getting embarrassing," the entry says. "It's the kids showing up the adults." I might add that Wired News is that cool uncle all the kids like.

A few answers and theories are in my old blog entry, "Why news sites don't use XHTML and CSS".

Comments

Posted by Jay Small on October 11, 2002, at 3:01 p.m.:

Some bigger Web companies, including the one I work for, have active site reformatting projects under way now. In our project, so far, I'm delighted by how much overhead we're cutting out of preparing and serving our pages. Nothing I can show publicly yet, but it's getting there fast.

The implementation grind will take more time, though -- the company I work for runs 20 heavy-duty news sites and a bunch of other niche sites. Lots of templates and caching programs to update. It'll all be worth it, but sometimes the only thing you can blame for moving slowly is the sheer mass of what you're trying to move.

Posted by Adrian on October 11, 2002, at 7:52 p.m.:

Great news. Of all the practical reasons sites don't use CSS, I think sheer size (having a large network of sites) is the most viable.

Posted by Anil Dash on October 14, 2002, at 2:06 p.m.:

We've had the same process underway at the Voice. After some initial (rather pronounced) reluctance, our designers are completely on board the CSS/validation bandwagon. We've already re-launched two sections of our site with compliant designs, with all new dev being done this way. Not as dramatic as Wired's site-wide announcement, but probably a more realistic model for most publications.

Comments have been turned off for this page.