How important is w3c validation for mobile sites???

[iprosoftware]

So mobile sites are all the rave, but how many are doing it correctly and with all the different options which is correct or the best?

For example I have a guy telling me that the mobile site must validate here http://validator.w3.org/mobile/ or here http://ready.mobi/launch.jsp?locale=en_EN

However I have run many so called mobile sites like nike (m.nike.com) and those built by dudamobiles and all dramatically fail the above tests!

Responsive is another key element of web design and the guys at twitter came up with bootstrap, so I ran these sites through the above validators and all have failed.

I take this site as an example from ilovebootstrap.com, please note this is not my site but was top of thelist on here.

Mobi Ready

2 / 5 - result poor mobile experience

Results from google pagespeed

Mobile 62 / 100

Desktop 83 / 100

So while it looks good on mobile devices it does not score well

If you look at the google site: http://www.howtogomo.com/en-gb/d/why-get-mo/

The case studies listed all fail the validation tests, so my question is is it worth getting our mobile sites validated and will this affect rankings?

[Aleyda]

Hi Andrew,

Passing or not W3C won't mean your site is mobile friendly or not, there are other, far more meaningful criteria and validations you should do. Foe example:

• Your site is correctly shown and accessible through the most popular devices used by your users. You can use Opera Mobile Emulator to test it.
• Your site loads fast in mobile devices (that usually have also more speed restrictions). You can use PageSpeed Insights to test it.

In dependance of what type of mobile site approach you have followed (parallel mobile web under a different URL structure, dynamic serving or responsive Web design) you also have good practices and additional recommendations that you should assess.

Please take a look at this Moz post where I shared the answers to the most common questions during a Mobile SEO process, you will likely find the answers to your questions there.

I hope this helps!

[AlanMosley]

I would look at it the other way around., am I concerned about what it fails me for.

yes I would go with responsive design, bootstrap is a good for layout,

yes I would try to get a good score on page speed,

[iprosoftware]

So you would stick with responsive design and work on making the site load as fast as possible and getting highest possible score on google page speed?

[garfield_disliker]

There is no direct benefit from w3 validation for SEO.

Having a functional, fast site has usability benefits. Google does factor engagement/usability into the search algorithm. For mobile sites, Google is more interested in how mobile users are redirected (if necessary) and if the page loads reasonably fast.

[iprosoftware]

So if we looking at optimisation then Google Pagespeed is the only point we should worry about?

You don't think there is any SEO benefit from having a w3c valid mobile site?

[AlanMosley]

don't bother with w3.org for the reasons you point out.

I don't try to pass validation for the sake of passing, If the validation has logic behind it that concerns me then I take note.

I use Microsoft Visual Studio code analysis(fxcop) for server side code for performance and reliability , I use the JSHint and Web essentials (css)  for client side code, I use the Bing SEO API for SEO, all of these are built into Visual Studio, I also use the IIS Bing SEO Tools for a more detailed look at the SEO.

I just ran a site of mine though w3.org and they gave me 3 errors, all nonsense

for example
Line 5, Column 59: Bad value X-UA-Compatible for attribute http-equiv on element meta.

This is the correct tag to tell Internet explorer how to render the page, if you listen to the w3.org, then you page will not render correctly in IE.