A Web Design Horror Story

August 04, 2004

Many of us understand the need for web standards and its benefits? We do our best to embraced it and help others understand the need for it. The following is a story about what can happen when others are oblivious to standards and why we still need to push it and talk about it.

A couple of months ago I designed a website for a new upstart company. The website was designed completely with valid XHTML and CSS. The client was happy and everything was grand when we finished our part. After the website was completed and running a third party company was hired by the client to do some back-end website management for them. To make a long story short, they wanted to host the website we designed and integrate it into their online software. This third party company, moved our files over to their server and a couple of weeks later to my abhorrence, this company had completely re-written the HTML—to bloated invalid table based HTML. Not only was it re-written with tables but the navigation was converted to images and javascript rollovers instead of the CSS list based navigation. All typographic headlines that were done with styles had been replaced with images. Several pages don’t render correctly in Mozilla. It made me sick, why would someone do that to such beautiful compliant code? I can only imagine it is due to their ignorance about standards based design and their lack of skill to understand it. (I also think they only use WYSIWYG applications to build their code which is probably contribute to the ignorance with HTML.) I emailed them and tried to explain to them why we use standards-based code and its benefits, but I have not yet received any response regarding why they re-wrote the code. What is even more embarrassing for them is on their website they claim the following.

“Our graphic artists, visual animators, multimedia specialists and web developers use the latest applications and development techniques to deliver web solutions that look phenomenal and function properly, efficiently and fast as lightning over the Internet.

‘Latest techniques’, ‘fast as lighting’, not so much my friends. Have a look for yourselves at the travesty that occurred.

Home Page Page Weight HTTP Requests
Before (standard compliant code) Link has been removed 88.464 KB 20
After (Table based code)Link has been removed 239.837 KB 40

This is a clear example of what happens when you use ‘old school HTML’ vs CSS and XHTML code. This experience reminded me that not all web designers are aware of standards and we still need to talk about using it, its benefits and teach those don’t know it. I wish this company would have contacted me before they re-wrote the code, I would have been happy to explain standards-based code and point them to some good resources about learning it, like Douglas Bowman’s latest article Throwing Tables Out the Window.

Don’t worry, I have talked to the client about it and am hoping that the right action will be taken to switch the site back to our code. It was by no means the clients’ fault and they have been great client to work with. In the end, the people that this really effects are the visitors to the site. It is said, “faster speed = Lower bailout rates = higher conversion rates = higher profits.” This is just one reason behind standards based design, but essentially it is about providing a good experience for visitors. I hope this story is a good reminder to us all why we design the way we do.

Comments

Brian Sweeting said:

What makes this story even worse, is that I'm betting xxxxx (third-party company name removed) charged extra for having to "fix" xxxxxxxx (company name removed)' website.

Posted on Aug. 4, 2004 08:35 #

kartooner said:

Your horror story made me cringe. I can't tell you the amount of times this has happened to me and I'm betting the same thing as Brian.

Posted on Aug. 4, 2004 08:43 #

Rob Mientjes said:

Good lord. Ignorance can be quite irritating. And the bloated code is just scary. Too bad for xxxxxxxx (company name removed). And your design is better, too.

Posted on Aug. 4, 2004 10:38 #

gb said:

This is just sickening. It's one thing if a site is just designed using old, out-dated techniques in the first place. But to transfer a cleanly, compliantly designed site into the code monstrosity that is the latter version... that's just simply wrong! I feel like doing a few rounds on the old punching bag after seeing something like that. Oh well, at least it might get me out of my chair and working out a bit...

Posted on Aug. 4, 2004 20:15 #

Kyle said:

This sure is a shame. I find that 'these kinds of people' are convinced that using standards-based designs is excluding a large portion of their audience that are using outdated browser.

Now, what I find ironic is that almost all of these people code exclusively for IE6/Win, and their 'backwards-compatable' design fails in Firefox, Netscape, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, etc.

Perhaps this company will see the hard facts and realize that they're loosing money by not using web standards. I really feel bad for the client at the end of the day though.

Posted on Aug. 5, 2004 02:47 #

Territan said:

Their website (link removed, this did link to HTML validator of third party company. You can guess what the results were).

'Nuff said.

Except, perhaps, for <nelsonlaugh>Ha-ha!</nelsonlaugh>

Posted on Aug. 6, 2004 14:30 #

Factory Joe said:

My favorite xxxxx (third company name removed) improvement was the addition of this tag: <span class="emphasis"></span>

And man, do I feel your pain... I think it would be of great benefit to the rest of us standards-based developers if you could find out why they did what they did... perhaps your code wasn't well documented enough? Basically, under what circumstances would they have left your code alone (if any)?

Posted on Aug. 6, 2004 15:32 #

Blake Scarbrough said:

Joe,
I am trying to find out why they re-wrote the code, I will let you know when they get back to me.

Everyone else thanks for you support. I hope this isn't a common experience for us designers. One thing I learned is to make sure that before you pass your code to someone else they understand it and agree not to touch it.

Posted on Aug. 7, 2004 09:31 #

Factory Joe said:

Actually, I always have a clause in my contracts that essentially says that if you or a subcontractor touches my code, I'll be bill you hourly to fix it. And of course I always maintain backups of the original work (also in the contract), so that I can bill them 20 hours or so to restore the original code.

I do agree, however, that that situation should be avoided if at all possible, since the whole idea of standards-based coding is to improve the user experience and enhance a site's search engine visibility (in a nutshell, anyway). Having it recoded in non-complaint code doesn't materially affect the client--as far as they can tell... But that's where it's essential, from the beginning, to explain your process and why and how you do what you do and what the benefits are to maintaining a standards-compliant site. The only sure way we can hope to avoid these situations in the future is to educate our clients one at a time... and help them see, perhaps through the hourly cost to restore the "good" code, that they should also be aware of the hidden costs associated with non-standard compliant development.

Posted on Aug. 7, 2004 11:24 #

Jim Amos said:

Utterly ridiculous. It's design firms like that who are slowing down the widespread adoption of web standards. There's really no excuse for usch ingnorance, there are plenty of resources available. I've experienced this kind of butchering too, and more often than not I can't even convince the client that anything is wrong because the only browser they ever see it in is IE6. I agree with the punchbag idea, it makes me mad.

Posted on Aug. 7, 2004 15:14 #

Jim Amos said:

Ok, I should have used the preview button. Sloppy.

Posted on Aug. 7, 2004 15:39 #

Miriam Frost said:

Ugh, how frustrating. Factory Joe has a great idea with the fix-it clause. We had a client come crying for help after their monkey (who, before he wrecked it, called my code "beautiful") installed Bloxom and let their authors "save as HTML" from Word.

Posted on Aug. 9, 2004 08:58 #

Manzell B said:

What I find much very conspicious is that the header image has changed. Both pictures feature black people have been replaced with pictures of white people. While it's not troubling that there don't happen to be any black people on the header image, i find it quite odd that someone *made the decision to go out of their way* to change it... incredibly bizarre, at best.

Posted on Aug. 10, 2004 00:52 #

Blake Scarbrough said:

I have removed links to the site and the third party site as per request from the client.

"Hit pigeons flutter", is all I have to say.

Posted on Aug. 10, 2004 23:26 #

Yannick L. said:

Perhaps this article and the comments made by your readers have opened their eyes. Lets hope they learn from this.

Posted on Aug. 11, 2004 06:21 #

CSSing said:

Is "" a bad idea? "" seems a little silly, but does the CSS class name really matter?

Posted on Aug. 11, 2004 13:30 #

Phunky said:

Well i hope that company didnt charge the client for the time taken to cludge the code you had already been contracted to create...

Posted on Aug. 12, 2004 06:33 #

Flawed said:

The Web standards are important but you all seem a bit too into them. Hear me out here first before you jump to conclusions.

Many people still use outdated browsers and such that butcher this kind of web standard code. I've had many clients complain and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't the time yet to design most my websites like this. It's too much of a head ache for me.

For now, I design niche websites in total web standards for clients I know targeting those who use the latest browsers. I will continue to use Table based html and stuff until I see it more phased out. Now just isn't the time yet.

It's cool to be complaint and cutting edge, but not all the time.

Posted on Aug. 14, 2004 01:12 #

Blake Scarbrough said:

Flawed, here are some stats of browser usage out there.

thecounter
and Browser News

Older browsers can still render the content accessible and readable. Just not as beautiful. Why punish 99% of visitors to accomadate 0.5%?
Answer that question.

Posted on Aug. 16, 2004 12:09 #

Ben said:

That pesky google cache strikes again ;p

This sort of stuff makes me laugh, and only because it wasn't my work. Otherwise I would be reaching for the plasters to stem the blood from my chin after it smacked into the floor with some force.

The mind boggles really.

Not much quality communication going on between the client and their backed dev company eh?

Posted on Aug. 17, 2004 10:09 #

ajar said:

Oh c'mon, this happens all the time and really isn't worth all of this angst. You did what you could to design and deliver a standards-compliant site and to educate the client about why it was better. The hosting company then butchered it by converting to tables and images. The best course would be to send a note to your client explaining what happened and why you are concerned about it. Blaming a lack of knowledge, or the use of WYSIWYG tools (which can create perfectly valid css/xhtml sites no matter what text editor cowboys say) is pointless. If your client is told about your concerns, then perhaps when they hear that their site loads too slowly they'll come back to you for help. Posting about it on your website (along with links!) guarantees nothing but alot of pissed off people.

Posted on Aug. 18, 2004 06:35 #

Blake Scarbrough said:
"Oh c'mon, this happens all the time and really isn't worth all of this angst."
This happens all of the time, I don't think so, people usually don't downgrade code.
"WYSIWYG tools"
I have nothing against WYSIWYG tools, I am just against using them solely as a crutch for understanding code or rewriting perfectly good code with bad code.

Posted on Aug. 24, 2004 10:37 #

Dave Marks said:

Did you ever manage to find out why these people butchered your code?

I would be interested to hear what they had to say for themselves!

Posted on Aug. 31, 2004 02:17 #