Seif

I have found that the Non-Technical viewers, in particular the clients I have worked with are easily impressionable with compliance logo's on their websites. even if it is "self-aggrandizing slop".

DaWei

Any client is going to be impressed by compliance. That's part of what they pay for. The client is (hopefully) only one of many viewers. Who puts on their GUI "Compiled without warnings or errors!"???

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Random-Spirit

People put logos of compliance on lots of things. There is the Windows Logo certificate that Microsoft gives out to software that passes their tests. TCO logos are displayed on lots of office equipment ranging from CRT screens to furniture. Heck it’s even on our food with Fair-trade certification.

Your average consumer might not go out of his way to look for a logo but their confidence in a product is raised when they see it. You probably find that people that are in decision making positions in business and corporations will look out for various logos when they order equipment and services.

Maybe its not the best place to put your W3C logos right at the top of your page but I think if you have worked to provide compliant code then its something defiantly to include somewhere on your site. The images show that you understand the various web standards and how to write compliant code and that you take pride in your work.

Wizard1988

So yeah, basically I am looking for work, mostly to build my portfolio. If you guys need a website built sent me a PM or something. Thanks.

__________________
JG-Webdesign

DaWei

Random, you are correct in some respects. Consider this: when you surf to a site, if it doesn't have the compliance images, will you immediately leave and try to find the information you seek on some site that complies? I doubt it.

In fact, the largest market does not comply with W3C recommendations (they're not standards) with regard to XHTML, or with many recommendations regarding HTML. Wizard's page will not reproduce the same way, for instance, in IE7, as it will in Firefox. In this instance the page is still eminently readable, but it's slightly different.

For more complex situations (opacity is one), one can choose between compliance and failure to work for a large audience. Use of the hover attribute on other than a link is another example.

I am not an expert in the area. There are things that I want to do, sometimes, that I cannot do (or haven't searched hard enough for hacks, probably) and have the page work cross-browser. If it DOES work cross-browser, and it's more than straightforward markup, it probably isn't compliant.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Random-Spirit

>Consider this: when you surf to a site, if it doesn't have the compliance images, will you immediately leave and try to find the information you seek on some site that complies? I doubt it.

That is very true. All I care about is the actual ability to view and use a page. Most web users don't even know what the W3C is, let alone what recommendation is.

>Wizard's page will not reproduce the same way, for instance, in IE7, as it will in Firefox.

True, even if two user agents claim to be compliant with the recommendations there will still be differences. One of the issues with the W3C's recommendations is that they failed to create a reference implementation of a user agent. If they had done that, all other user agents would have something to look at when there is ambiguity in the recommendations. Also there are the differences on the DOM for each browser which makes it all the much more complex to write web pages that work cross browser.