As someone who valued that "Validated by w3c" button on my website back in the day, if a website today has FULLY valid HTML, I gaurantee you the admin is a massive nerd.
This is exactly why HTML is so ubiquitous, because it is so tolerant of mistakes in formatting, syntax, and just about anything else.<p>Most browsers will even read and process most of the things listed on this page because even if the spec doesnt say so, it just makes sense to anyway.
HN is not one of them
<a href="https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com%2F" rel="nofollow">https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombina...</a>
50% of my errors are “<font> is deprecated”. If browsers stop supporting that I’m guessing huge swathes of the web will be affected, so I’m guessing it will never happen.
<p><pre><code> "Accessibility failures are near-universal."
</code></pre>
Why does it seem like Accessibility is always an after thought? It is usually so easy to do while a site is built. We just don't think about it until someone complains?
prefers-color-scheme has shipped for something like 7 years now and not even all of the major sites I frequent which already have a dark theme toggle support it yet. Obviously accessibility is more important than a dark theme (though it can be part of an accessibility story), but if it takes a minute to ship it and it's been so many years you get the idea of how little it's about when something is easy.
Ironically the site does not support `:prefers-color-scheme`.
Almost nobody is testing their website with a screen reader so they don't think of it as part of the user experience. In fact, I think most developers are only vaguely aware of what web accessibility actually is for and how it affects users.
Because 0.5% of the world population is blind and it costs much more than an extra 0.5% to make a website accessible?<p>Everytime this question is asked I wonder if people are genuinely not understanding that. It's just not financially worth it.<p>I'm not defending this position, but it's just glaringly obvious.
I would def argue this is a feature of the net ( that people from all walks of browsers can see mostly the same thing ) and not a bug.
I would be interested to see if the metric moves meaningfully based on switching to a different set of parameters for example running from the US vs the EU and multiple attempts over multiple days to see if anything changes...
The question is how important it is to have fully valid HTML.<p>The HTML validator complains about a ton of useless crap IMO. At one point I simply gave up on that. Just blindly adhering to that validator makes little sense really.
At this point, with all the tools available, if your site does not have fully valid HTML, it is because you don't care. LLMs are your friends, dev.
And not a single person cares. What does fully valid even mean anymore?
[flagged]
Legit who cares? It's not stopping people from visiting them