Devastated to find I’ve been snubbed yet again for a nomination (UPDATE: this was sarcasm at it’s worst, I never nominated myself for a Golden Spider and never will!), I had a second look at the criteria the judges are using to evaluate the entries. I thought they wanted W3C compliant sites but now checking out the shortlist I realise they’re only interested in how “clearly presented” the W3C compliancy is. I forgot the badges!
The Golden Spiders are beyond a joke. No more need be said. But if I ran Business & Finance Magazine (the owners of the Golden Spiders), I’d be very pleased at the profit they bring in (I’ve heard the annual profits are measured in six figures).
But I’m so horribly ashamed at the state of my peers in this industry. The shite some guys are producing cannot be described without the kind of expletives I try to keep off this blog. I’m no standardista and I believe that often too much attention is given to the validity of a site’s code over the validity of the design decisions. But the complete lack of regard by five out of the six “best web design and development agencies” in the country for basic web standards is indicative of the kind of insular and backward industry we have in Ireland. It pains me to say that as a rule of thumb, if you want quality web design, look elsewhere.
49 Comments
1) I don’t think it’s necessary to include text resizing ‘on’ a Web site. Even W3C WCAG 2.0 is about ‘teaching a man to fish…’ - that is, teach people how to use their browser settings. Even if I thought otherwise, it certainly isn’t important enough to warrant a specific check point. If anything, the guideline should state that fonts should be relative and not fixed.
2) Point 16 implies that it’s ok not to use alt tags by say ‘If alt text is employed…’
3) Referring to point 17, W3C badges are meaningless as a result of misuse throughout the Web. Even the W3C itself recognise this by supporting our instigation of Content Labels (POWDER)
4) Regarding point 19, what about dialup? They’re assuming that everyone has broadband. I wouldn’t include this if it meant using broadband as the baseline.
5) Point 14 in the document is also silly. It’s only applicable ‘if’ a site map is used. If they’re going to include this point it should say ‘Does the site use a site map, is it clearly identified etc. It’s actually an important best practice to use a site map.
Regarding the categories and I must point out that I spent 0 time reviewing them. A blog platform is something like Wordpress and Terapad. It’s not a blog.
I’m with you on every point, Paul. Their criteria are very strange. And their categories are artificial money spinners: more groups, more entries, more cash.
It’s worth pointing out that 13 of the sites had 5 errors or less, which is a clear indicator that they are aware of and pursuing web standards. I tend to divide sites into “looking like they want to validate” and “obviously aren’t aware that standards exist”. Only the purest of standardistas are concerned with sites showing 5 errors or less.
You can’t seriously claim that WebFactory orArekibo are showing a “complete lack or regard” for standards. They’re quite clearly showing them a lot of regard with one or two missing close tags.
Yeah, fair point Des. I’ll adjust the severity of my accusation accordingly! :-)
@Des as a matter of interest, what are your test cases?
We find that (most) people test for the wrong stuff and thereby draw the wrong conclusions.
unbelievable stuff Eoghan - Unlucky!
You no-doubt know that these awards are complete b.s. (ha ha well you know now!)
out of interest, what did you use to validate all the sites (en-masse presumably)and generate that screenie, or did you do that yourself.?
rgds
niall
@PaulWalsh I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
I was simply talking about XHTML errors according to the W3C Validator.
My point is simply that in the table Eoghan posted there are 13 sites that are *very* close to passing validation and it’s unfair to lump them into the “total failure” pile.
The site with 4 errors was probably once valid and has been edited quickly once with someone leaving out tags. The site with 20+ errors is a different kettle of fish, and the sites with 100+ errors are displaying a flagrant disregard for the practice of writing (X)HTML.
Arekibo now validates btw
@Des, ah. I’m not a huge fan of code validity for the sake of it. It’s certainly not the first thing I would check for as the rest of the site could meet lots of W3C guidelines and be user friendly. Most big corporate Web sites won’t validate due to their CMS.
Code validity isn’t required in WCAG 2.0.
@Paul
Neither am I. But Eoghans post was based on it, that’s why I was discussing it here :)
@Des, I know, that became apparent very quickly. I was merely voicing my impartial opinion - that is, I hold a similar opinion to Eoghan regarding the awards but perhaps I wouldn’t have tested for code validity as a means of testing Web sites generally. Perhaps it’s just too easy :)
It is too easy alright. That said though, I don’t think there are many great web developers/web designers that are against building websites properly.
We’ve all seen shiny reflective gradient riddled XHTML compliant sites that are totally unusable and don’t serve any user need, but I should also see I’ve seen very few well designed usable websites written in really bad html.
So yes quality of code isn’t a good indicator of website quality , and I’d never consider looking at first when evaluating a site. However bad code is usually a sign of a bad developer, and if a developer hasn’t learned xHTML correctly, then it’s unlikely they’ve paid attention to a creating a great user experience, or even a mediocre one.
In my experience Good XHTML does not imply a good website, but bad XHTML usually does imply a bad website.
I agree. Developers should strive for compliant code. My point is more applicable to a CMS that spits out crap via compliant templates.
Des, isn’t your boss involved in the judging of the spiders and also helped with putting the criteria together? Might be worth mentioning that, though Eoghan is probably aware of that already. Might help transparency with the anyone else reading this though.
Well, hopefully this feedback will go back to the organisers. No awards scheme is perfect but some are less perfect than others - I’m sure I overheard a pig say something like that…
Hi Niall,
I was only messing about. I’ve never nominated myself for these awards and never will. Best I just say that outright!
ah lol :) okay.
Des, Paul:
Of course web standards compliance is a terrible way to start judging a site, but it’s one of the very few (only?) objective means of doing so. Also, I think that validation (or near-validation, as you mention, Des) is a reasonable indicator of the nature of the creator (i.e. someone that makes a site that throws a couple odd content validation errors is the polar opposite of someone that makes a site with 200+). However, both of these points aside, I was just looking for an easy way to poke a hole in their silly set of criteria!
@Eoghan, not for big Web sites. At a W3C Mobile Web Initiative meeting Segala’s Trustmark was used as a primary use case - during which time the European Head for the W3C tested one of our certified sites with a validator. I reminded him that the site complied with Double-A and two check points in Triple-A and that the CMS didn’t technically permit valid code. His response was, yeah you’re right, it’s not the best way to test a site when you put it like that.
My teams would know better than me at this point but my guess is text resizing, support for screen readers, descriptive and meaningful hyperlinks (missed quite a lot), use of CSS, markup of tables if they need to be used, tab order… we have a formal evaluation specification which is based on the W3C recommendation for evaluating Web sites.
While I agree that XHTML/CSS validation is a brute force way to decry the awards, I think we only need to look that little bit further to uncover the Golden Spiders for what they are - an absolute f**king travesty. I will make several points here before I get bored and give up:
1. This little diamond has been shortlisted in category 11 (Best Indigenous Website of 2007). There must not be too many decent ‘indigenous websites’ this year, considering this one is a rehashed Template Monster template. But hey, if you’re going to use a template, why not jimmy it up and force some streamed audio down the users throat as well. Fantastic stuff - the judges obviously did some serious criteria-totting there.
2. ‘Blogs’ and ‘Blogging platforms’ are very different things. Damien Mulley’s blog is not a blogging platform, it’s a blog. WordPress was the blogging platform used if I’m not mistaken. Or am I just being a pedantic geek?
3. How can this entry actually be coded WORSE than it was last year?
I give up. This industry is one big joke.
Are you doing the rest of the categories as well Eoghan or just these ones? I have some sites nominated but some didn’t make it, and I can’t believe some of the sites that are up ahead of them! What happened to standards and compliance that was promised. Was IQ Content involved at all?
@David - I don’t think iQ Content, or any of the judiciary, were involved in compiling the shortlist. There’s no transparency there at all and scorings aren’t available, even to entrants after the competition. Certainly this was the case last year. I can only imagine that the shortlist is compiled by some of the lovey dahlings in Business and Finance magazine.
David, I don’t think I’ll do the rest. I took a sample of the first 10 categories to get a feel for what the shortlist was like.
Like Ken said, I’d imagine the judges weren’t involved in this stage.
I had one client who I put forward for the awards that was contacted via their online enquiry form to see what their response times were like. This was done by one of the judges as I saw a copy of the mails the client received! However, they didn’t make it through and they were the only site out of 6 I put forward that received such a contact. All the sites I put forward were XHTML/CS S compliant (most XHTML1.1) and really well designed (if I do say so myself) and only 3 made it, into a category that I don’t think received much entrants!
@David It sounds you are looking for some kind of sympathy after spending money on nominating clients yet this is the scorpion you’ve ridden before and know exactly what its nature is. How many people have you argued with previously about the Golden Spiders, defending them again and again? The frog just got stung.
Eoghan, I’m not looking for sympathy. I simply was informing you that I knew of one judge contacting one of the sites I put forward, which was part of their judging criteria. I was simply outlining that it was done on only 1 of the 6 sites AFAIK. I was actually contributing to your whole discussion to let you know that 3 fully compliant xhtml/css based designed sites that look quite good, didn’t make the list. You wouldn’t know this as we don’t know who submitted what! Don’t give me your sympathy… I’m perfectly fine thanks :D
The only defence of the golden spiders that I continue “again and again” is that it is good to have one for business purposes. I get a lot of leads because of I have one and I believe I win more contracts too. Am I wrong to do that now? I still don’t agree with the poor selection of a number of websites that are up there!
Oh, I’m a toad, not a frog! :D
Oh, sorry Eoghan. I thought you posted the previous comment. It was actually Damien.
@Damien, yes, I work for iQ Content.
I was not representing iQ Content when I wrote that comment, it was more a general observation that a site with 2 errors is most likely solid XHTML with one or two blunders, whereas a site with 100+ is more than likely a web developer who has no regard for web standards. I believe this to be true regardless of what awards are being passed out and to whom.
There was no ulterior motive to my comment, as I hope everyone can see.
Rightly or wrongly Golden Spiders are respected by the business community here in Ireland. The judges are all well respected business people and not web developers who would know how to validate a HTML page or be familiar with Template Monster templates. Some of the judging criteria are a bit silly and misguided alright, but this is their game and the bottom line is, you don’t have to play it.
If you want web awards that recognise the talents and standards you hold dear, why not suggest or help create them? Set up a community awards that are not business related, and where nominations and awards are decided by actual peers rather than business leaders. Have the ceremony in a pub, hire the room for €100. It would be a great night and one that I would gladly participate in…
We entered the spiders for strategic reasons, being an Irish based Internet start-up in a highly competitive and crowded market. Here’s the thing: Our investors like the Golden Spiders. We are looking to attract more investment, possibly from Ireland… accountants and their risk adverse BES investor friends like the Golden Spiders… The business community here in general like the Golden Spiders. The people on the panels that decide whether or not you get the next grant *may* like the Golden Spiders. Advertisers like the Golden Spiders. It’s not about self promotion or talent, it’s about coverage and marketing. Take another look at that graph at the top of this page. The red is probably proportional to the positives that may arise out of playing this game for a start-up like ours. The green is the loss of credibility amongst our peers. At the end of the day, this one is not about lifestyle, it’s about business.
When in Rome… (and we are in Rome!)
Marcus, all the reasons you give for entering the awards are the same reasons why it’s a stupid idea to hold an alternative in a pub. My advice is for those who care, to provide constructive feedback to the awards organisers. I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed so much ‘controversy’ over an awards ceremony.
The association I Chair (British Interactive Media Association) hosts the UK’s most prestigious awards within the UK digital industry so I’ve got a little experience when it comes to awards. I know nothing about the Spiders so I haven’t voiced an opinion, other than what I think of specific guidelines.
I’m assuming the Spiders are non-profit and run by a non-profit association?
Good point, Marcus. The awards are about marketing and PR and not necessarily about awarding talent, ability or quality. As long as we both understand that when a website wins a Golden Spider it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not an utterly crap website, then I think we can agree to disagree. It’s an award for boosting businesses and has little or nothing to do with the Web. Fantastic stuff.
@Ken - it should be all of the above. Web standards have a place in awards today, but they’re only a very small percentage of the judging criterion due to the immature market we currently work in. Winning an award should be based on all the merits you mentioned in the hope it will win you more business, raise funds etc etc. It’s not one or the other.
@Paul Walsh - Just to inform you that the Spiders are not non-profit - they make massive profits every year and are sponsored by a big telco (with a large monopoly on Ireland’s telecommunications infrastructure might I add). Thousands and thousands of (mainly small) Irish businesses pay 150 Euro to enter their sites each year. Six figures are made and go into the pockets of… well, who knows - the organisers I suppose. Let’s not forget that each table costs a grand or so to purchase for the event (and the winners are usually there to collect their awards - convenient, no?)
It’s a scam really.
@Ken, sorry… it doesn’t matter if the awards turn a profit, as long as it goes into a non-profit association which in turn, invests in the industry which stands to benefit from such awards. Who ‘owns’ the awards? Where does the profit go?
@Paul Walsh - Your guess is as good as mine, Paul. But I’d be amazed if it went anywhere other than into the pockets of the organisers.
@PaulWalsh I am aware of your participation as chair of BIMA and agree with your points, but I do think you missed have missed mine… I am not new to the world of Internet start-ups and as the founder of StartingDigital a London based not for profit community that formed back in the web 1.0 days in the wake of the original First Tuesday’s collapse into their commercial downward spiral (http://web.archive.org/web/20010614072911/www.startingdigital.com/about/), let me tell you that pub based events work. We ran all our events from pubs (just as the original FT did) and let me tell you there were plenty of success stories (and good nights out!)
Lads we all know where the profit goes… I don’t think anybody in under any illusions, and in essence, that’s my point!
@Ken - our partner (Digital Arts) is investing £100k into the BIMA awards this year and that excludes sponsorship. Anything made from the awards goes back into the association to invest in the industry. That’s why I can run events such as the Great Facebook Debate and only charge £25 for non-members. It should be about industry. I look forward to hearing more about who owns the awards.
@Marcus - pub events work, but not for an industry awards ceremony. I didn’t miss your point :)
Yeah, the registration fee is a double edged sword really,keeps plebs like me out but does make it a more prestigious event. I don’t know. Your site is deadly bro.
@Paul Walsh - That sounds like an honorable and altruistic venture. We could do with something similar here.
I agree that these awards are a bit of a joke to use the oft too used Irish colloquialism. It was positive for BalconyTV to win Best Music Website at the Digital Media Awards last year, but the crazy entrance and attendence fees didn’t let it sit too easy in the stomach. I couldn’t help feel that there were essentially too few innovative, entertaining websites nominated. Obviously the huge fees would be a turn off for the cash strapped. I have always felt the purpose of an award ceremony is to award the genuine talent, and to inspire younger people to get involved.
We have decided to set up our own ‘on a balcony’ Internet Award. Very simple really. We simply what to see some innovative, entertaining websites.
It has to be said that there are not many out there. Which suggests another problem.
Anyhow, enjoying this blog alot. You should all drop up to the BalconyTV Internet Award night, also to be held on the 22nd. Bring a bottle of wine. Its free, and should take about 15 minutes. Good times.
And if anyone has any suggestions, please.
@Ken - I don’t wish to detract from the purpose of Eoghan’s post and my response to your comment is way too long. So, I’ve written up a blog post of my own - I’m very keen to hear what people think. http://segala.com/blog/is-ireland-in-need-of-an-industry-representative/
Sorry for going back over an old point, but I think if people are failing, even with 5 errors or less, it IS a disregard for W3C standards.
If you had to bring your car to do an NCT test and you didn’t take off your hub caps, you you can expect to fail. There are no in-betweens - you fail or you pass.
If web developers were really concerned about W3C standards, I think they’d go the extra mile to make sure they don’t fail. Failing on 5 errors, is not going the extra mile. You’ve failed the test.
@Tom Doyle - you’ve proven my point then. WCAG 2.0 is not concerned with code validity like it was in WCAG 1.0. Segala (a name contributor to the specification) always sided with the fact code validity doesn’t necessarily mean a Web site will be accessible. So, without getting into the debate, *technically* speaking, it’s not deemed as important as it used to be, by the W3C.
@ Paul Walsh - I always agreed with what you were saying.
One of my biggest pet hates aroung WCAG 1.0 was that simple fact. You could easily pass the coding standards, but you could have the most inaccessible website on the web. But in saying that, I very much welcome WCAG 2.0, simply because it will draw more attention to usability, over code.
I’ll always stick with this though - I’d hire a web designer than can create cross broswer compatible designs over someone who can code only to the latest standards in an instant.
@Tom - I’m pleased that we’re on the same side. Whenever I talk about code validity as if it’s not t_h_a_t important, I don’t mean from the perspective of a developer. I’m referring only to Web sites that don’t have valid code as a direct result of the CMS. Your team could design and build the most perfect templates and CSS etc. but for the corporate Web sites to implement or continue to use a crap CMS which spits out pages which are accessible but don’t contain valid code. This is why we’re also working with CMS providers to certify their products as Accessibility-ready - please don’t take this as a plug, plugs are forthcoming ;)
WTF is worldsday.com?! It goes to a Sedo for sale page…
Well I googled “Golden Spiders” and apparently it’s a farce.
An enlightening post, Eoghan. I’m not one to preach on valid code, not one bit, but just wanted to drop in and let you know I enjoyed this read.
The last site above in the Best e-Business site asks for credit card/bank details but doesn’t use SSL. Surely a criteria for e-business would be secure!
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[…] Breaking news: Golden Spiders Shortlist is a load of toss: Naive by Design | Snubbed Again by The Golden Spiders […]
[…] of which. Eoghan does a good analysis of the sites shortlisted. 94% fail to validate to W3C standards? Eoghan should press release his findings. This is also […]