

W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention - infdaze
http://w3fools.com/
We are passionate about the web, learning, and craftsmanship. We want you, as web designers and developers, to be successful in your careers. We feel, though, that W3Schools is harming the community with inaccurate information. Like any other authoritative educational resource, W3Schools should both hold itself to, and be held to, the highest standards.<p>We hope we can illuminate why W3Schools is a troublesome resource, why their faulty information is a detriment to the web, and what you (and they) can do about it.<p>~ members of the Front-end Dev Community, January 14th, 2011
======
alextgordon
W3Schools is great because it covers _everything_ , in an approachable manner.
For the one occasion a year I use XPath, W3Schools has a nice refresher and
function reference.

Sure, the information may be imprecise or just plain wrong, but we have to
remember that this is for absolute beginners. Merely having errors does not
make w3schools worthless, and a lack of errors does not make alternatives
better.

The material on W3Schools is split into bite-sized chunks, along with numerous
examples, references, quizzes, try it yourself areas... None of the
alternatives suggested are this well organized.

Just think what kind of HTML tutorial could have been created with the time
and effort it took to build w3fools.com.

~~~
jonprins
How is "numerous examples, references, quizzes, try it yourself areas" even
worth anything if said examples, references, quizzes and so forth are...
incorrect?

It's like saying, "Well, at least we have textbooks! Too bad half of them say
the world is only 6,000 years old, but hey! No body's written a better text
book than this yet!"

And how is it decent as a refresher and function reference, if it's just
refreshing fallacies? Try using something that's actually accurate. In fact,
MDC has a pretty decent xpath section:
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/xpath>

~~~
bermanoid
The organizational differences between the two sites:

1) <http://www.w3schools.com/xpath/> 2)
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/xpath>

pretty clearly show why W3Schools is capturing so much beginner mindshare.

From 1), it's trivially clear where to start: the link is labeled "Start
Learning XPath Now!", and even if you skip that, below there's a linear list
of topics. When and if I do click on the "start" link (or the first item in
the ToC), I'm greeted with what is very clearly the first part of a
walkthrough. Going through the sections, it's all pretty clearly marked,
chunked up into easily digestible pieces, etc. Perfect for a first glance
through the topic, even though I'll definitely admit that in general W3Schools
content leaves something to be desired.

Conversely, from 2), the Mozilla.org page, it's pretty difficult to figure out
where I want to be clicking, assuming I know nothing. After I discard the
"tools" section as probably irrelevant to learning from scratch about this,
I'm left with the "Documentation" column. So far, so good.

The first item in that list says "Introduction to using XPath in JavaScript",
which still sounds pretty good, except wait! At the top of the page, it says
that XPath is primarily used with XSLT, but this tutorial gives an intro to
XPath _without_ XSLT, so that can't be right...why would the special case that
_doesn't_ match what people usually use this for be the first item in the
documentation list?

And yikes, those other links don't really look like introductions to XPath,
either, they look like special topics about XPath. The last link
(<http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/08/holman/>) is probably the closest to what a
beginner might want, but it's a _lot_ of material, not the ~10 minute
introduction to the topic that we'd really be looking for.

It's alright, though. If we poke around at the "Using XPath" link
(<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Using_XPath>), we find that "Mozilla"
(yeah, I'm aware that's a wiki, but you know what I mean...) has a suggestion
as to where to go to learn more:

 _This article does not attempt teach XPath itself. If you're unfamiliar with
this technology, please refer to W3Schools XPath tutorial._

Sigh.

------
alex_c
While everyone else was busy bitching about ExpertsExchange, a few people got
together, built a much better alternative, and now dominate Google search
results.

As far as I can tell, these guys are dismissing that option because it's too
much work.

~~~
rwaldron
I'm dismissing it because the information is wrong. I also contribute to
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/> in support of the
<http://promotejs.com/> initiative.

So as far as I can tell, you're making comments that are wrong because you're
not informed.

~~~
alex_c
I think you might have missed my point.

ExpertsExchange was useful because it had a broad range of obscure technical
information, and the ability to get specific questions answered, but it was
spammy and a pain to use. StackOverflow came along, took the good parts of
that model, combined them with a clean interface and an open community, and
won.

W3Schools is useful because it's a good barebones reference that assumes zero
prior knowledge of the subject, but it's somewhat shady in how it represents
itself, and the information isn't always accurate/complete/up to date. X came
along...

As far as I can tell, neither of the two sites you linked, or the parent
article, are a good reference for absolute beginners, which is the only thing
that will either beat W3Schools or force them to improve.

------
unreal37
First let me say, I am a web developer and use W3Schools as a reference. The
web would be a worse place without it. They deserve their high Google ranking.

So to attack something that is on the whole good, which may be 99% accurate
but not 100% accurate, seems mean-spirited. Someone put a lot of time into
this, and it's a shame they didn't do something productive instead of
destructive.

~~~
paulirish
> it's a shame they didn't do something productive instead of destructive.

The people behind this project are also developers and contributors to
projects like jQuery, Dojo, Prototype, Chrome Developer Tools, jQuery UI,
svgweb, HTML5 Boilerplate...

------
justinph
I agree with the sentiment here, but not the way in which this goes about it.
W3schools' name is a little scammy, but the info they house is useful.

The issues w3fools cite are pretty esoteric and/or very nit-picky. For
instance:

    
    
      | www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_q.asp.
      | Browser Support. The <q> tag is supported in all major browsers, 
      | except Internet Explorer.
      This is blatantly false; <q> tags work just fine in IE8.
    

Uh, yeah, I guess it works just fine in IE8, but it doesn't work in IE6 or
IE7, both of which are called 'Internet Explorer'. So saying it doesn't work
in IE is technically correct. It just could be more specific.

W3schools obviously fills a niche that the W3C isn't filling. Reading a spec
for HTML x.x is useful, but not viable when you're trying to get stuff done.
W3Schools has gone through the work of reading the spec and turning it into a
good reference. Good for them.

~~~
rwaldron
"W3schools obviously fills a niche that the W3C isn't filling"

This alone is the biggest problem - that you think they are somehow related.
They are not.

"W3Schools has gone through the work of reading the spec and turning it into a
good reference"

No. You're wrong. THIS: <http://dmitrysoshnikov.com/ecmascript/>

...is a good reference based on a spec.

~~~
justinph
I think your example proves my point perfectly. A blog post on this guy's
website might be more technically correct and complete, but it certainly isn't
easier to use, or actually reference when you just want to look up how the
string.replace() method works, for instance. I think people are
underestimating the utility of the easy organization that w3schools provides.
They make it accessible, quickly.

------
jacquesm
Don't bitch, fix it. Build your own w3schools and make a go of it, _obviously_
these are huge oversights that need to be addressed by competent technical
professionals that are as dedicated as these guys are.

Really, as long as you define yourself by attacking such a mediocre
institution as w3schools you still have a ways to go.

Google didn't get where they are by pointing at altavista and their crappy
search results, they got where they are by doing better.

No 'rallying' required, all it takes is spit and determination. Of course
that's a lot harder than bitching.

~~~
bentruyman
Maybe you missed this: <http://w3fools.com/#build-one-yourselves>

~~~
jacquesm
I don't see any building, I just see a strange kind of entitlement mixed with
a taste of blackmail.

Really, they're just bitching about the google rankings when you really think
about it, because 'they know closures' or something to that effect.

w3schools is ranked highly because lots of people linked to it and it seems to
have helped them in some way or other. If you feel that that ranking is not
correct then maybe start your own search engine as well while you're at it?

~~~
extension
Truth through Google ranking?

Yes, you can gain a massive audience by telling lies people want to hear i.e.
"I can teach you how to be a competent web developer!" They are still lies and
they deserve criticism. There are extreme errors on that site that will break
you for years and cause a lot of damage. They have a blatant SQL injection bug
in their MySQL lesson, for example.

And "I don't see you doing any better" is schoolyard justice. An entry level
site that's accurate and current is a fine idea. Someone should do it. That's
irrelevant to this matter.

~~~
jacquesm
In grade school I learned that the country I live in can be represented on a
flat map. That doesn't mean there aren't any levels of knowledge above grade
school.

w3schools does not portend to be the 'be all end all' of knowledge about the
web or developing on the web. They're just another resource and they probably
serve their intended purpose a very large number of the times.

Example code usually does not come with guarantees of correctness or even
applicability to your problem. It just shows you the basics. It's the cut-and-
paste mentality that causes such samples to be used in production code and
that's a real problem, but that problem does not lie with the source of the
information.

A MySQL lesson that shows you the basics is explicitly _not_ going to go in to
details like prepared statements, sql injection and prevention and so on.

Just like you don't teach physics to a kid that you're teaching to walk.

If you're using w3schools as a source for cut-and-paste examples or even best
practices then you're doing it wrong, think of it as the 'grade school' of web
development. Good enough to get your feet wet, not good enough to build an
enterprise grade web application.

------
kellysutton
I feel like the world just told me Santa Claus doesn't exist.

~~~
getsat
This explains all the advertising on their site that I've been ignoring for
the last decade. Mind = blown

------
rmason
I think w3schools would benefit greatly from an open dialog with the community
or perhaps an advisory board.

But launching a frontal assault isn't the way to solve the problem.

I note with irony that the w3fools site displays as a blank page in IE-8 ;<(

~~~
danheberden
If you read the content of the site, w3schools was attempted contact multiple
times. They also browsed the github repo and started making changes to their
site to save face.

You're absolutely right, if they made it something community driven and
contributed to, it'd rock! That's why MDC is linked to, it's a wiki!

p.s. ie8 working cool for me :)

------
michaelty
"The whole concept of closures doesn't exist at W3Schools. Also, they never go
over the difference between a function declaration and a function expression.
I know this is for beginners, but they could at least put it in the advanced
section, or make it apparent that functions are first-class?"

Damn, that is awful.

------
sdizdar
I went thru <http://w3fools.com/#htmlsucks> and errors reported there are very
minor (I guess using Facebook API documentation trained me to be more
forgiving).

The w3school is a perfect for what it is. Is it reference? No - they don't
claim to be. Is it school for beginners? Yes - and the excellent school. The
organization is very good, there are examples, etc.

Can somebody make better school which is wiki based? Yes.

~~~
ajpiano
"Is it reference? No - they don't claim to be."

They don't? <http://gyazo.com/61a797188fa6045b23e6f5cf22006e1c.png>

~~~
iansym
i like how the menu's on the right :) but then again, maybe i'm not seeing the
whole picture.

------
kenjackson
Thanks for the post. I must admit,I thought w3schools was affiliated with the
w3c. Good to know its not.

------
akavlie
The top placement in Google search results for almost anything W3Schools
covers is another sign that Google is broken, in my view.

reference.sitepoint.com is a much better reference for anything they cover --
easier navigation, better presentation, and most importantly, more depth and
advice on important topics. In a fair fight, it would far outrank W3Schools.

------
RyanMcGreal
W3Schools has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate, but it scores over more pedestrian work in two important
respects. First, it is slightly easier to use; and secondly it has the best
SEO of any major beginners' web tutorial.

------
radioactive21
huh I always use w3schools just to quickly see what a language is. I never
took it as serious learning, that's for books and other sources.

Attacking this site is like attacking a flyer for being too gimped on
information.

~~~
bentruyman
So what you're saying is W3Schools should not be called out for posting
misinformation?

~~~
alanstorm
A the risk of being tarred and feathered for pedantic behavior, the W3Schools
doesn't post misinformation. They posted information that was accurate at the
time, and then let is sit up there for 5-8 years as the state of the art
improved.

[edited for grammar]

------
qbproger
While the author offers alternative places to learn CSS, Javascript, and HTML,
PHP and SQL didn't seem to make the cut. If W3Schools is doing a poor job,
what are good PHP ans/or SQL resources?

------
venturebros
hmm I always use W3Schools but I have never used to learn anything just to
refresh my memory on something

------
Roridge
Would it be wrong to point out that the missing parts of the source for
w3fools.com ? Or observing that placement of things like the google analytics
code at the bottom, instead of the head?

Or would that make me pedantic?

~~~
peol
Regarding the placement of GA, this is intentional. You don't want to count a
visit before the page has actually been displayed to the user.

~~~
bentruyman
Sauce:
[http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/tracking/gaTracki...](http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/tracking/gaTrackingOverview.html#standardSetup)

------
gf3
If you read through the content you'll see it's not an attack. It simply
addresses some major flaws in W3Schools as well as some sketchy business
practices.

~~~
ambirex
Perhaps the using the term "fools" could be seen as an attack. They do bring
up some interesting grievances.

~~~
steverenz
Their points are valid of course...but it seems laughably naive to treat this
as some kind of cause that developers should rally around. And their response
to "why don't you build a better version' made me laugh - it sort of
encapsulates internet culture in general. I'd like to see more links to better
sites for rank beginners than this "call to arms" stuff.

~~~
ajpiano
I _wrote_ the "why don't you build a better version" text as a response to
"Internet Culture," which mandates that if you want to point out that
something is bad, you actually have to build a better alternative yourself.

If I ride on a boring, crappy rollercoaster, I don't need to open up my own
theme park in order to air my frustrations.

A lot of the people who worked on w3fools spend a lot of time helping actual
other human beings who need support in building websites, and encounter the
errors from w3schools regularly, and we invest our time in those and other
endeavours. W3schools said "we're going to spend OUR time on building an
entry-level reference that everyone can use," and we want

a) the community to be well-aware of its caveats b) it to improve

