Jeffrey Zeldman Quotes

IT professionals have a responsibility to understand the use of standards and the importance of making Web applications that work with any kind of device.

Everybody who runs a Web site knows we're not assured of compatibility, and we could end up with a split.

We at The Web Standards Project turned everything on its head. We said browsers should support the same standards instead of competing to invent new tags and scripting languages. We said designers, developers, and content folks should create one site that was accessible to everyone.

We're actually helping advance HTML5 in some very concrete ways, such as Edge, which is in beta.

It's not about HTML 5 vs Flash. They're mutually beneficial. The more important question is the freedom of choice on the web.

I think HTML5 is one area where Mozilla has done very poorly at actually communicating what we have done.

Because the competitive landscape of the web is such that the site which looks and works best gets the most traffic, developers and designers put a premium on the presentation of that content and let structural markup take a back seat.

Our old site did not have very good support for the disabled, but our new site should soon have much better support. With all of our content in divs now, we can hide all but the relevant chunks of content and navigation with a simple alternate CSS file.

I'm just loving BlueGriffon Editor! XML, HTML5, CSS, ARIA, SVGEdit all built in.

Technically, web browsers can control what users see, and sites using Javascript can overwrite anything coming from the original authors. Browsers heavily utilize Javascript to create an interactive Internet; sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Gmail could be crippled without it.

We found a way to make things look great to the human eye through the window of a graphical web browser without worrying about what everything looked like under the hood.

As far as the customer is concerned, the interface is the product.

The average user doesn't give a damn what happens, as long as (1) it works and (2) it's fast.

Even if it's not always the best markup, what are Facebook and Twitter? They're web standards with some scripts. They may not validate, but they're still CSS layouts and simple markup, and that's great!

I don't think there are as many usability issues as there are tactical or strategic decisions related to whether incorporating social networking into your site is going to help or hurt.

Flash and HTML have co-existed, and they're going to continue to co-exist.

If someone had protected the HTML language for making Web pages, then we wouldn't have the World Wide Web.

What people want is a seamless Web experience.

We invest heavily on Firefox on the desktop. We have a user base we want to keep happy.

Despite demand, the BlackBerry avoided offering generalized web browsing support.

The Internet was supposed to allow anyone to set up a web page and share their knowledge with the world. But in practice, it's too difficult and takes too long, and almost no one does it.

Validation is easy - you run your site through a validator, and it's either valid or it isn't. The rest of the stuff, such as whether my logo or the biggest headline should be the h1 in my HTML, isn't so easy and is subject to interpretation.

At Adaptive Path, we've been doing our own work with Ajax over the last several months, and we're realizing we've only scratched the surface of the rich interaction and responsiveness that Ajax applications can provide.

Websites are kind of useless. There's so much great web content and design out there, but the ways in which they are being experienced are not being maximized.

For most of the '90s and the first part of this decade, content providers who wanted to publish online only needed to worry about the graphical web browser.