Smartial Wayback Machine Text Extractor



Live version of this page exists.
However, it is different from the archived page (2 redirect/s found...)


This article contains 1814 words.

Markup | Web Directions

Markup

  • About the Survey
  • The Audience
  • Operating Systems and Browsers
  • Markup
  • CSS and Presentation
  • JavaScript and the DOM
  • Rich Media
  • Server tech­nolo­gies
  • The Cloud
  • Conclusions and predictions
  • What ver­sions of HTML/​XHTML do respon­dents use?
  • How often do respon­dents val­i­date their markup
  • What doc­types do respon­dents declare?
  • Do you use HTML5 markup
  • Tables finally out the window?
  • Presentational HTML
  • Extended Semantics

Since our last sur­vey, there have been sev­eral impor­tant devel­op­ments related to markup tech­nolo­gies. The W3C effec­tively declared XHTML2 dead, and HTML5 has gained con­sid­er­able mind­share among devel­op­ers. In addi­tion to the ques­tions related to gen­eral markup prac­tice we asked in the first sur­vey, we also asked a num­ber of ques­tions in rela­tion to HTML5, both in this sec­tion, and in the Scripting and API sec­tion of the survey.

As we noted last year,

Given that this sur­vey asked devel­op­ers what their prac­tices are, there’s the chance that they’ll pro­vide answers about what they think they should be doing, rather than what they actu­ally are doing, even though it is an anony­mous sur­vey. Verifying how closely the responses match the actual prac­tices by devel­op­ers would in any case be difficult.

We asked respon­dents two sets of ques­tions — one related to lan­guage fea­tures they use, the other markup prac­tices (for exam­ple how fre­quently they validate).

Language Features

What ver­sions of HTML/​XHTML do respon­dents use?

Since ver­sion 1, XHTML has been con­sid­ered by many web devel­op­ers to be “the future of HTML”. There has also long been a group of devel­op­ers who were scep­ti­cal of the value of XHTML syn­tax. In HTML5, while both HTML and XHTML syn­tax are per­mis­si­ble, it could be argued that HTML syn­tax is being given pre­dom­i­nance by the devel­op­ers of the lan­guage. But just how much is this reflected in cur­rent devel­oper practice?

When asked which syn­tax they used, well over half of respon­dents relied either exclu­sively (34%) or mostly (32%) XHTML, as opposed to 42.4% and 29.7% in the pre­vi­ous survey.

Those who use HTML syn­tax exclu­sively grew from 5.9% to 9.8%, while the num­ber who used mostly HTML also rose, a lit­tle, from 15.9% to 16.4%.

It would seem that HTML5 and its priv­i­leg­ing of HTML syn­tax over XHTML is hav­ing some impact on devel­oper prac­tice year on year. But, XHTML con­tin­ues to be the pre­ferred syn­tax for respon­dents by some way.

2010
MarkupCount%Exclusively HTML1389.84%Exclusively XHTML47633.95%Mostly HTML, some­times XHTML23016.41%Mostly XHTML, some­times HTML45132.17%XML50.36%Other191.36%
2008
MarkupCount%Exclusively HTML735.92%Exclusively XHTML52342.38%Mostly HTML, some­times XHTML19615.88%Mostly XHTML, some­times HTML36729.74%XML90.73%Other100.81%

What doc­types do respon­dents declare?

A lit­tle later in the sec­tion we asked which doc­types devel­op­ers declare in their doc­u­ments. Here we def­i­nitely see a sig­nif­i­cant leap in the adop­tion of HTML5, up from just 1% in late 2008, to 12.6% in this sur­vey, pass­ing HTML 4 strict and tran­si­tional, and XHTML 1.1. Both ver­sions of HTML 4 held almost exactly level with last year’s results. Transitional doc­types con­tinue to be the most com­monly used.

2010
DoctypeCount%none251.78%HTML 4.01 strict1178.35%HTML 4.01 transitional16211.55%HTML 4.01 frameset10.07%XHTML 1.01 strict35325.18%XHTML 1.01 transitional39628.25%XHTML 1.01 frameset50.36%XHTML 1.1563.99%HTML 517712.62%Other110.78%
2008
DoctypeCount%none211.70%HTML 4.01 strict1068.59%HTML 4.01 transitional14211.51%HTML 4.01 frameset30.24%XHTML 1.01 strict38431.12%XHTML 1.01 transitional42534.44%XHTML 1.01 frameset10.08%XHTML 1.1534.29%HTML 5161.30%Other100.81%

Do you use HTML5 markup (for exam­ple sec­tion, header, nav elements)?

To dig a lit­tle deeper into the use of HTML5, we asked whether respon­dents use HTML5 markup. 65% said never, but nearly 21% said some­times, and 7.35% answered yes. Clearly, this audi­ence is at least exper­i­ment­ing with HTML5, and inter­est in the lan­guage it is fair to say is up con­sid­er­ably from the last survey.

2010
AnswerCount%Yes1037.35%Sometimes29420.97%Never91465.19%

We fol­lowed up by ask­ing those who said they used HTML5 which fea­tures of HTML5 they use. 11.3% of all respon­dents referred to struc­tural ele­ments like sec­tion, header, nav and footer. 3.6% men­tioned video, 2.5% can­vas and 1.6% audio. In the JavaScript sec­tion we also inves­ti­gate API related aspects of HTML5.

We also asked respon­dents the extent to which they have adopted the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative’s Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-​​ARIA), exten­sions to HTML which make for more acces­si­ble web appli­ca­tions. Less than 1% said always, a fur­ther 9.3% said some­times, but on the whole, WAI-​​ARIA has some way to go to gain wide­spread adop­tion. It’s worth not­ing that ARIA’s pro­file for this sur­vey is not dis­sim­i­lar to HTML5’s pro­file in the last survey.

Do you use WAI-​​ARIA (for exam­ple the role attribute) in your markup

2010
AnswerCount%Always90.64%some­times1309.27%never117083.45%

Markup Practices

How often do respon­dents val­i­date their markup?

Perhaps prac­tices have changed a lit­tle since late 2008, per­haps respon­dents this time were more hon­est, or per­haps its not sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nif­i­cant, but the amount of val­i­dat­ing respon­dents claim to do of their pages fell some­what in this sur­vey. 32.6% said they always val­i­date their pages (down from 36.8%), 33.3% said fre­quently (up from 32.5%), some­times held more or less steady (23.11% as opposed to 22.5), while 4.5% of respon­dents said they never val­i­date (up from 3.2%).

Question 10: How often do you val­i­date your markup?

2010
FrequencyCount%Always45732.6%Frequently46733.31%Sometimes32423.11%Never634.49%
2008
FrequencyCount%Always45436.79%Frequently40132.50%Sometimes27822.53%Never413.32%

Tables for layout

A num­ber of ques­tions we worded a lit­tle dif­fer­ently from the last sur­vey, and in this instance a change of word­ing seems to have pro­duced a dra­matic result. Last year when asked “do you use tables for lay­out”, 84.76% answered no. This year, when the option was “never on pain of death”, only 60.2% have this answer. Meanwhile, last year 10.3% answered yes, while this year, three times that num­ber, 31% responded “Only if I really have to”. A new option “Yes, often they’re much eas­ier for lay­out than CSS” gave those who actu­ally pre­fer using tables a spe­cific response to choose. Only 2.6% gave this answer, sug­gest­ing that tables as a pre­ferred lay­out tech­nique over CSS at least among our respon­dent are a very small group, but still many will use tables when it makes life a lit­tle eas­ier (we sus­pect lay­ing out form ele­ments may be one area where tables are widely used, and may ask about that specif­i­cally next year).

Still the dra­matic change in response from such a minor change is inter­est­ing — per­haps the light heart­ed­ness in the answers had some­thing to do with this.

Do you use tables for layout?

2010
AnswerCount%Never, on pain of death84460.2%Yes, often they’re much eas­ier for lay­out than CSS362.57%Only if I really really have to43531.03%
2008
AnswerCount%No104684.76%Yes12710.29%

Presentational HTML

As with last year’s sur­vey, we asked respon­dents which pre­sen­ta­tional HTML (if any) they used. The per­cent­age of those using none rose to 34.3% from 30.6%, but it still means two thirds of respon­dents use some form of pre­sen­ta­tional HTML. 5% of respon­dents still use the font ele­ment, and inter­est­ingly, the least used ele­ment or atribute we asked about was u, at 4%, despite this being still part of HTML5.

Which pre­sen­ta­tional HTML ele­ments and attrib­utes do respon­dents use?

2010
FeatureCount%None48134.31%font715.06%b21315.19%i17112.2%bor­der16511.77%width28820.54%u563.99%height24517.48%cellspac­ing25918.47%cell­padding21915.62%cen­ter1127.99%
2008
FeatureCount%None37830.63%font705.67%b21817.67%i18715.15%bor­der14611.83%width28423.01%u796.40%height23819.29%cellspac­ing24319.69%cell­padding20916.94%cen­ter1229.89%

Extended Semantics

Again this year, we asked respon­dents about their use of micro­for­mats and RDFa. Microformats con­tinue to be the far more widely adopted of the two, with 43% (up from 41.5%) report­ing using micro­for­mats, while 16%, down from 18.7% responded “what are microformats?”

RDFa usage was up, from 3.4% to 5.6%, and the num­ber of those express­ing igno­rance of RDFa fell from 44% to 30.8%, but RDFa does still have a long way to go to catch up with thelevel of use micro­for­mats have for extend­ing the seman­tics of web content.

Do you use micro­for­mats in your markup?

2010
AnswerCount%Yes48434.52%No60242.94%What are microformats?22415.98%
2008
AnswerCount%Yes42934.76%No51241.49%What are microformats?23118.72%

Do you use RDFa in your markup?

2010
AnswerCount%Yes795.63%No80257.2%What’s RDFa?43230.81%
2008
AnswerCount%Yes423.40%No58647.49%What’s RDFa?54444.08%

The big story in markup is the rise of HTML5 in the last year or so. While this might elicit lit­tle sur­prise, given how much inter­est, indeed hype has been asso­ci­ated with HTML5, as we’ll see else­where in the sur­vey, there’s not always a cor­re­la­tion between hype and devel­oper adop­tion (for instance, NoSQL appears to be mak­ing lit­tle head­way with our respon­dents as yet).

Next

Next, we’ll see how respon­dents are using CSS and other pre­sen­ta­tional tech­nolo­gies.




Please close this window manually.