Web 2.0, accessibility, cross-browser compatibility, valid HTML, semantic mark-up and everything else that ties nicely together into a neat package called web standards are all the rage among forward-thinking web designers at the moment.

And rightly so. I, as I’m sure you do, wish to be able to view a site in any browser, on a Mac, Windows or my mobile phone and not have to hunt down the content that has been pushed a mile down the page because the menu was a pixel too wide. Or struggle to access a menu because it’s hidden under the site logo. Of course I’m referring to extreme cases here, cases that we’ve all encountered and more-often-than-not excused. Not everyone can afford, or are interested in, the services of standards-driven web designer.

However, what’s Amazon’s excuse? What about Microsoft, Yahoo, Ask.com, IMDB, Flickr or Google? It’s hardly even worth mentioning mySpace and Facebook, for they in their own right, regardless of their benefit to the world of social networking, are an insult to designers everywhere.

Before this turns into a rant against the behemoths of the Internet world, which it is in no way intended, please let me make my point. These companies, of which the above are mere examples, are the front of corporations worth millions, even billions. Of course this is no secret. In most cases they employ hundreds, if not thousands of technical wizards down to customer service agents – stuck at desks all around the world, every one an integral cog in the machine making the money. These companies can surely afford to have their websites coded with semantic, valid HTML and CSS. Yet their sites are still riddled with missing Doctypes, alt tags, unclosed brackets, frames and ancient HTML mark-up.

Last year Ask.com (previously askjeeves) redesigned their site. A simple, attractive, easy-to-use design. Yet if you take the time to peruse the source code – the site is apparently coded in HTML 4.0, has huge spaces, CSS contained within the page source and the W3C Validator will present you with 77 errors. This is a website that, on average, is visited by over 0.5% of global internet users a month (which may not sound like a lot but sure is!) Google.com doesn’t even contain a Doctype, (but W3C will tell you it does have 51 errors – the only objects on the page are a few links and a search box!)

W3C set their standards for a reason. Usability issues are addressed for a reason. They’re not law, never could be, never will be. But if the large web companies would invest in making their websites cleaner and more standards-driven, they would set as both an example and inspiration to the rest of us. Perhaps.

I won’t lie; it’s not possible to maintain perfectly valid code all the time. I tend to struggle with e-commerce sites and integrating complex AJAX. Yet I’m one lowly designer, not a team of professional developers. It can be done, and there are a plethora of sites that prove it.

Some examples of top web companies that care for their code include WordPress, Firefox, Live Journal, Craigslist, Wikipedia… And I struggle to find more. However there are thousands more small business websites or personal blogs where the time and care has been taken to create not just an attractive, usable, functional website, but one that adheres to essential standards and design ethic.

If they can do it, what’s to stop the giants joining in?