More and more often, friends of friends call me to submit their websites to me, among other things paid dearly, requesting a quality analysis. Often for the sake of speed, I submit the site pages to W3C standard validation and, to my great surprise, I notice the presence of a large number of errors and warnings. While in the case of warnings, some things can be overlooked, in the case of code errors, the practice is different and they absolutely must be corrected -> otherwise: incorrect display of the site and/or its content in different browsers. It is obvious that one must always evaluate the target audience of the site; but I believe that even in the best-case scenario, where the aforementioned site is to be seen by a very small group of users, at least the code errors should not be there (i.e., normally never!). Added to this is the complete failure to observe the rules for making the site SEO Friendly. I mean, for personal portfolios, we could even not care, but I don't understand how one can pretend nothing is happening when building sites for companies, corporations, and/or commercial entities. In a reality full of competitors, trying to make the site as visible as possible to search engines seems to me like the bare minimum. Of course, it takes more time and time is money. My impression is that therefore more and more people try to get performance at the lowest possible price, without considering the service being offered. This seems to me to also apply to the piano (or more generically in society) where often to save a few euros, there is a tendency to drag out some problems that should be solved immediately but are instead carried forward and which could, if neglected, generate much more serious problems requiring far greater investments to resolve. In essence, I am of the opinion that the one who spends more, spends less, and the quality and time of qualified people who work well must be paid properly...
Do you agree?