Chess Websites not standards based

[nuff]

Why do some chess websites still use ugly frames. Others have not made use of modern day features like css or even database features. Most of these sites do not have valid markup. Is this because of the lone ranger mentality or what? Chess players/webmasters should not be ignorant you know.

Note: to avoid pointing fingers I have deliberately avoided giving examples.

[CRoberson]

If you've been in CS atleast 25 years, then you'll have seen many standards come and go. Some are very short lived and skipping one or two is sometimes very good.

When it comes specifically to websites, I prefer good orgranization and presentation of the information. I see many websites where this is lost and too much focus is spent on standards as opposed to excellence in information organization. They suffer from too much glitz and not enough sense.

Websites (like the chess ones) are there to disseminate information not to show off tech knowledge.

[nuff]

If you've been in CS atleast 25 years, then you'll have seen many standards come and go. Some are very short lived and skipping one or two is sometimes very good.

When it comes specifically to websites, I prefer good orgranization and presentation of the information. I see many websites where this is lost and too much focus is spent on standards as opposed to excellence in information organization. They suffer from too much glitz and not enough sense.

Websites (like the chess ones) are there to disseminate information not to show off tech knowledge.

Still using frames means one does not understand how websites work or how users like to see/navigate webpages. Even search engines do not like frames if you did not know this. There are simple things that can be done such as using SSI (server side includes) instead of frames.

Using css stylesheets your pages are easier to navigate and consume less bandwidth as pure html is repetitive. If you want chess to continue to be a minor sport, continue the ignoramus route.

[Zlaire]

Because they rather spend time on what they actually do (develop a chess engine, run tournaments, etc.) then wasting it on programming a good looking website.

I've been thinking about setting up a website for my engine for a while, but I rather spend the time on improving my engine then creating a good looking functional website.

[ologist]

All I have to say is that when I go to a chess engine website I am interested in what they have to say about the engine and downloading. I am not looking to be sucked into an immersive environment that is rich in multimedia and CSS.

[nuff]

All I have to say is that when I go to a chess engine website I am interested in what they have to say about the engine and downloading. I am not looking to be sucked into an immersive environment that is rich in multimedia and CSS.

Is this site an immersive environment that is rich in multimedia and CSS? No and neither are the BBC or CNN websites. Show me any serious site in the top 100,000 ranked sites that uses frames.

If you are only interested in chess engines, many are interested in chess news, chess forums and chess products. A site that is difficult to navigate will drive away surfers and customers.

By the way you don't need the technical skills to design a good website. The work is already done for you, there are free/cheap solutions available.

[nuff]

Lets look at

- Superchessengine
- Arena
- Winboard/Xboard
- Hiarcs

Lets look at

- CNN
- BBC
- Mozilla

Which of the two categories look like they are for the modern user? Perhaps we should be using horse-drawn carriages so as not to "keep up"?

[dadij]

- CNN
- BBC
- Mozilla

The topic is why chess web sites are not standards based. Your choice of "standards based" websites is rather unfortunate. Here are the results of checking how well those three sites actually conform to standards (using http://validator.w3.org)

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
Failed validation, 49 errors


BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
Failed validation, 37 errors

That's a total of 86 standards breaking errors for these two "standards based" sites. Out of the three you mention, only the Mozilla site contains standards based HTML, but so does the following chess site, so what's the big deal?

Rybka forum: http://rybkaforum.net
This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
Passed validation

[nuff]

Not valid html? At least they use css stylesheets have some database features and avoid the very ugly frames. I thought I had seen the Hiarcs guy around, the HIARCS website looks like a sample website that came with Frontpage 4.0 (Frontpage was long discontinued for those of you not in the know). Gamers would like to know why something as advanced as Hiarcs still uses the Frontpage 4.0 website? (Yes people do note these things)

[Graham Banks]

Not valid html? At least they use css stylesheets have some database features and avoid the very ugly frames. I thought I had seen the Hiarcs guy around, the HIARCS website looks like a sample website that came with Frontpage 4.0 (Frontpage was long discontinued for those of you not in the know). Gamers would like to know why something as advanced as Hiarcs still uses the Frontpage 4.0 website? (Yes people do note these things)

I don't really regard the style or format of a website as important.
What matters to me as a user is that I can easily navigate my way around and obtain the information or downloads that I want.

Regards, Graham.