HTML Hell
May 13, 2004
Let’s face it, customers can be finicky. Let me first explain that I’m working on a project that was initially built with Frontpage and therefore contains malformed code and other abtrocities I’d rather not dicuss.
The project was handed off to me like an Olympic torch. The client basically instructed me to create a new section of the site, and to make sure it looked consistent with the rest of the site. Working with the code I can tell you that I’d rather just redesign the entire site, but sadly this isn’t in the budget. Rather, the customer whose lead designer left the project, wants to keep the core design intact; nothing changed except for a few textual updates and section additions.
Working through the code and attempting to decipher it, I can’t help but visualize myself somewhere in the backwoods of Lousiana, knee-deep in a murky swamp. As I slosh my way through the weeds and overgrown plant-life, I finally build a small shack on unstable ground so to speak.
If the site was build with standards and semantics in mind, it would have taken half the time to construct the new section. However, because Frontpage created the code it took me double the time and effort to make it work. Wading through UPPERCASE tags, sloppy code and sytax just isn’t my idea of efficiency. Rather, at least to me, it’s HTML-Hell.
I can’t wait for the greenlight to re-build their site with XHTML, CSS and web standards. Until that point, however, I’ll have to live with trying to work my way through uneven ground, and put up with finicky customers who demand any outside links be removed.
15 comments
Good write-up. I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve had to work with old code and trying to update it without a redesign is like hanging yourself twice.
Most customers — at least the one’s I’ve worked with — are more content with how it looks rather than how it works. They are more concerned with the outside or public view, and haven’t any understanding of what clean code is versus sloppy code.
by gary on May 13, 2004 at 5:22 pm. #
I’ve been there countless times. You’ll survive — just keep that bottle of antiacid in hand.
Let’s just hope concern about web standards reaches enough critical mass (we’re slowly getting there) so we don’t need to put up with this crap anymore.
by beto on May 13, 2004 at 7:47 pm. #
Beto,
The section addition was approved. However, in the description it makes note of the surrounding companies in the industry. When I emailed the client to inform them the section was uploaded they took one look at the page and demanded the hyperlinks be removed.
Apparently some customers believe — who knows why — that in order for them to have any sort of outside hyperlink they would need that outside source to link to them. This is so backwards. There would be no World Wide Web (or Internet) if sites only linked to eachother under the condition of reciprocal trade.
Oh yeah, and believe me, the antaicid is taped under my desk.
by kartooner on May 13, 2004 at 8:02 pm. #
Yeesh. Frontpage is an absolute nightmare. I’m glad I don’t have to deal with it at my job. I will say, however, that sometimes it’s worth the hassle to do some extra work up front (even if you don’t bill for it) and get things converted to a format you can work with rather than pull your hair out in frustration every time they decide “we don’t like Trebuchet, can we use Arial? No wait, Verdana!” Most of the time, I don’t even tell my clients or my boss that I’m using web standards, I just do. They don’t know the difference, and they wouldn’t care if I did explain it to them.
Case in point for extra work being worth it: at work, I absolutely loathe using Excel. To the point that I have written several programs in C# solely for the purpose of NOT having to open Excel. It’s not in the job description, and the initial amount of time spent programming is much higher than if I had just used Excel, but it has paid off in spades now that I can just click a few buttons and completely avoid the usual confusion of using MS’s crap. The extra time and hassle was worth the payoff, especially as I have found new and varied uses for the tools I have written. Something to think about, anyway.
by Paul G on May 14, 2004 at 4:46 pm. #
Paul:
I agree with you, but converting a site from stale code to standards can take time. When I’m at work, my time is devoted to a slew of projects, enough to the point that if a client needs a site overhaul or tweaking I need to pencil them in.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m okay at multi-taking, and I devote equal time and energy to clients. It’s just the bulk of my work is re-designing web sites or creating sites from scratch. If the client is interested in a new design I just create it with valid XHTML, CSS and web standards without asking. Most of the time , as Gary mentioned, they are interested in how in looks moreso than how it works.
I use this same philosophy when I’m re-designing sites; XHTML, CSS and web standards, no questions asked. If the customer only wants textual tweaks or section additions, and if their code isn’t up to standards, I just make the additions and revisions without rewriting the bulk of the code. It comes down to time and when you stand alone as the only developer, time is literally of the essence.
With this particular client in mind I will eventually pitch the idea of a redesign. Why? For the benefit of updating code, sections, text and layout effeciently. To the client it will essentially look the same; but the added benefits of decreased bandwidth and forward/future compatibility will pay off in the long run.
by kartooner on May 14, 2004 at 7:39 pm. #
Too bad there are those so called Web designers/developers that make a one page site once a year, call themselves a designer or developer, and don’t want to get with the times because they’re too lazy to learn. Kill them, kill them all!!!!
by Rafal on May 14, 2004 at 9:06 pm. #
By the way, nice site. Will be visiting it often.
by Rafal on May 14, 2004 at 9:07 pm. #
Well Erik, I see your site is being overrun by Polish people commenting
Cze?? Rafa?… ale Ci zazdroszcz? Edmonton… tu w Ontario pokazuj? mecz Oilers raz na trzy tygodnie… No i macie du?ego mola (malla)
by Jarek Piórkowski on May 15, 2004 at 7:43 pm. #
Those crazy Polish! I’ve got to watch what I say, however, since my great Aunt is Polish and she would put the Pollack Smackdown on me.
by kartooner on May 15, 2004 at 8:00 pm. #
nie poznaj? wszelki J?zyk polski.
by kartooner on May 15, 2004 at 8:04 pm. #
Yeah, the online translators leave much to be desired. Especially to less popular languages like Polish.
by Jarek Piórkowski on May 15, 2004 at 8:43 pm. #
I’m actually surprised I found an English to Polish translator.
by kartooner on May 17, 2004 at 6:31 am. #
I am really glad I visited this site. A real cool style which is an asset and inspiration to the Word Press community. On the post: What worries me is that most clients do not see that there is in fact any relationship between how a site looks and how it works at all.
by Root on May 17, 2004 at 6:41 pm. #
My editor of choice — HTML-Kit (http://www.chami.com) has HTML-Tidy built in. It’s been an absolute godsend for me when I’m dealing with ropey markup. A quick right click and all that nasty goes away! It has code specifically for tidying up micro$oft HTML (usually produced by Word) too.
Did I mention you can get HTML-Kit for free and its got more features than um, something with lots of features?
by Richard@Home on June 2, 2004 at 11:22 am. #
Very cool, Richard. Thanks for the heads up.
I’m downloading HTML-Kit now.
by kartooner on June 3, 2004 at 11:24 am. #