On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:26:03 +0400, Arioch /BDV/
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 18.10.05 × 19:41 Eik × Ó×Ï£Í ÐÉÓØÍÅ ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á):
> > Since so many people use Hotmail and other MSN services, a browser
> > failing to work with them will easily put people offthat browser, no
> > matter whose fault it is (and the users couldn't care less really, they
> > just want it to work when theyclick).
> ...but before, users are sometimes asking to fix things.
> And Opera should show some gauge or traffic light showing user how good or
> bad page is.
That's unlikely to help. A completely invalid page can still work
perfectly if the author understands that his viewers will be using
different hardware or software and tests on multiple browsers, while
a page that passes validation with no errors can look dreadful simply
because the author is doing something really dumb (such as setting
a large negative margin in CSS) or depending on a bug in his own
system. A browser is able to check the validity of a page, but it
can't decide whether the page makes sense. Only a human can do that.
What's good or bad to the user and what's good or bad to the browser
are completely different things.
Validation is a useful tool for determining the cause of a problem,
but it's only part of the process and it's only useful in the hands
of someone who really understands what's going on. Putting a tool
into the hands of people who aren't able to use it is always a risky
business, and that's as true for a validator in the hands of someone
who doesn't understand HTML as it is for a chainsaw in the hands of
a drunk. In both cases the end result is unlikely to be pretty.
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]