I have been reading a fair few web sites recently. The likes of Css Beauty and Web Standards Awards, and others …

The stuff that you find on these websites is really good stuff – great designs that have been considered in every way – in terms of the design, the structure, the css styling, the colour, the idea – everything.

But there is a problem within web standards, I feel.

Like many good things. Like many movements that want to ‘get things right’ and ‘gain a balance’, the balance can shift too far.

I do feel that the web had a big problem with sites being designed and realised without a set standard and method that fits in with the technology – and without a compromise on aesthetics.

Back in the day, designs and web publications were ‘hacks’ and ‘work-arounds’, produced by frustrated creatives who wanted to make things look good, but they were faced with constrictions and obstacles. These constrictions no longer exist, so professionals that still use the old methods are just being lazy and actually communicate a lack of understanding and commitment to their profession.

Web Standards is a grand way of improving the overall standard of work published on the web, but I can’t help feeling that, in many cases (certainly not in all) some of the work is ‘going too far’. Folk are getting too anal with the web standards gospel.

If you can imagine it all as a pendulum:

The furthest point of one swing would be a site that has no regard for accessibility, standards, or any concern with doing things properly. A site with poor, bloated markup and that is unoriginal and unconsidered in design.

The balance would be the central point – sites that address the accessibility issues in an appropriate manner, and show a commitment to doing things right – sites that are original, that try and be different and have there own individual character, personality and quirks. Sites that ooze integrity, with an intelligent approach to accessibility and functionality.

The other end of the ‘swing’ are the sites that that are so concerned with covering every conceivable accessibility issue, that (here comes some controversy) the work becomes almost aesthetically disfigured and, dare I say it, discriminates against those with no real accessibility issues …

Yep. There, I’ve said it. I am lucky to have near perfect 20 20 vision, and I am able to navigate around a site easily. I also view sites using my PC and Mac using the latest browsers. I would say that the majority of web users are the same. Therefore, when I go on a site I want to be treated to an experience that caters for my needs – that is different and challenging to my senses. I want to see great visuals, experience new media, and navigate using methods that challenge the norm – daring to be different.

Recently I saw a criticism of a site that didn’t validate, because the code used to add the ‘Make Poverty History’ link was not valid to W3C guidelines. This is ‘blind anal madness’. This a good example of individuals that I would call the ‘view-sourcers’. Folk that straight away ‘view source’ and make there mind about a site, the designer and it’s overall quality by what they find there.

Being a web designer, it is true that I look ‘under the bonnet’ and like to see good markup and quality css styling, but I certainly don’t immediately ‘view source’ as soon as the site has loaded, and start tutting because it uses a few extra tags.

Intelligent Balance is what is needed, my friends …