What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
75 Comments
- woofers07, on 04/08/2009, -2/+60#16 Spend countless hours cursing I.E. to death.
- oda1, on 04/08/2009, -3/+48All on one page!? THANK YOU.
- ShiftyBizniss, on 04/08/2009, -1/+33I went to W3C's website validator and discovered my site had 8 errors! oh *****, I thought.. then I tested some others and calmed down a bit.
Apple.com - 9 Errors
Digg.com - 31 Errors
Yahoo.com - 34 Errors
Facebook.com - 42 Errors
Google.com - 43 Errors
Microsoft.com - 180 Errors! - jedinsyd, on 04/08/2009, -3/+31And the #1 most important thing when launching a website!
You have a correct favicon for your ipod? - bob_the_alien, on 04/08/2009, -1/+19Reading this has given me a tumor.
- realpolitik, on 04/08/2009, -0/+15Just spent the last 6 hours using an excrutiatingly slow Virtual PC setup on my last-gen PowerBook to try to figure out why my site doesn't scroll in IE 6 using a testing server on a free host that has an uptime of like 5 minutes every 15 .
Turns out that relatively positioning the body breaks scrolling.
/rant
/***** IE 6 - inactive, on 04/08/2009, -5/+19"8. Validation
You should aim for a 100% valid website."
Why? - darkjolt, on 04/08/2009, -0/+12I am truely sorry for your lots.
- darkism, on 04/08/2009, -2/+12Obviously Microsoft has the most validation errors, because Microsoft does not now and has never given a crap about standards.
- StankInTheBank, on 04/08/2009, -1/+11Yeah a lot of the validation rules are pointless. Pointless rules make people ignore rules.
- HeavyWave, on 04/08/2009, -2/+11So why does their website work across all browsers and never breaks?
- bob_the_alien, on 04/08/2009, -3/+12they did.
- chosenone-, on 04/08/2009, -1/+9Who said those are ranked? Seems a bit random to me...
- merreborn, on 04/08/2009, -0/+7Those numbers are for a single page, not the entire site.
- whytey, on 04/08/2009, -4/+11But your website is nowhere near as big as these company sites
so you have it easy - mdaize, on 04/08/2009, -1/+8Microsoft's website is designed for cross-platform, cross-browser, they have acheived that.
who cares about validation when it works? - WibWobble, on 04/08/2009, -0/+7I love syntaxgs' comments.
- hyderalamgir, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6Crap, Microsoft wins again
- skifreak107, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6What the hell?
- Astark, on 04/08/2009, -8/+13You'd better check yo self before you wreck yo self.
- merreborn, on 04/08/2009, -1/+5Several of these are not "essential".
- einexile, on 04/08/2009, -1/+5I line up favicons along the top of my browser with the Name field empty. If there's no favicon that means I have to leave the name in obviously, so it takes up more space and it goes in the plain old bookmarks list. I'll still go to the website when I need it, of course, but I'll never click on it out of boredom just to see if there's something interesting up.
- theblt, on 04/09/2009, -0/+4Wow, a lot of people in the comments clearly don't care about standards-compliant markup...
Think of it like this, a large site with many validation errors is built kind of like a Jenga puzzle -- you move one piece around and the entire thing breaks. When you write standards-compliant markup from the beginning, your code is more portable, will be guaranteed to work more often than not, is easier to maintain between multiple developers, and is more future proof in the event a browser like IE fixes some of it's problems and becomes more standards-compliant. Also, standards-compliant code will, in general, perform better for both search engines and handicap assistant devices.
Sure you could probably get away with having a handful of validation errors on a small business website. But imagine having to deal with issues that crop up due to validation errors on a large e-commerce application. It's going to end up costing you money and wasting everyone's time. - davidwmfc, on 04/08/2009, -1/+5slightly ironic that it won't load
- jedinsyd, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3I had a client worry about how the website looked in IE4.
Seriously. - woofers07, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3Ummm yeah.... You should probably just not comment on things from now on.
- ferdibirdi, on 04/08/2009, -1/+4this syntaxgssyntaxgs he hurt my head alot
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -1/+4I would ALSO like to mention backup
or
I would also like to mention BACKUP? - sabach, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3I look forward to them, this is one of the more understandable ones.
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3You can sit on the toilet all day!
http://howtoearnmoneys-*****.com - MightyUpsetter, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3you are a ***** moron
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2Ali G in da house!
- MMaster23, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2Also check for memleaks using modern browser development tools such as IE8 Dev Tool and Google Chrome. Just launch that fancy ajax site of your and click around like crazy.. if memory usage shoots up more then 20%, your JS sucks.
- abhishattitude, on 04/08/2009, -3/+5Check out the hosting provider. many websites have poor hosting provider and turn off readers because of high latency time and downtime.
- vagrantradio, on 04/08/2009, -2/+4Are they still posting those silly articles? *shakes head*
- theblt, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2Start developing sites for some Fortune 500 companies and tell the client you don't give a ***** about Section 508 and see what happens.
- absentmindedjwc, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2I would have to say that cross browser support would easily be number 1. If you have decent content, but your site looks like ass in anything but firefox.. your traffic will be lower (people tend to not come back if your site is *****), thus your search engine rankings will suffer.
But trust me, as someone that has access to logs for sites with >13million daily users... opera, chrome, and the iPhone browser are not terribly important (although, you really cannot check too much...) - paulgermana, on 04/10/2009, -0/+2http://cgmarketing.ws
- MMaster23, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2It's funny how developers and designers work for weeks to make a website work in every browser, yet completely forget to make it more accessible for disabled people/screen readers.
- solid12345, on 04/08/2009, -1/+3Surprised they didn't ask you to make your website handicap compliant, as if a blind person would be wanting to look at my online design portfolio...
- paulgermana, on 04/10/2009, -0/+2http://cgmarketing.ws
- ShiftyBizniss, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2touché, merreborn
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -0/+290s
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -2/+4ass
- BrendanSheehan, on 04/10/2009, -0/+2It's risky mentioning the Validator in your 'advice' article, if your own site doesn't pass it.
- MScrip, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2All my sites now validate XHTML Strict. After the initial hair-pulling to figure out all the things it took to make it validate, now it's just normal. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
- atroxodisse, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2quirksmode ftw
- RadiatedAnt, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2#17 all on one page.
- paulgermana, on 04/10/2009, -0/+2http://cgmarketing.ws
- paulgermana, on 04/10/2009, -0/+2http://cgmarketing.ws
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is