W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Non-conformance by W3C members

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:06:36 +0900
To: public-evangelist <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020906060636.GA1629@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

> At 18:09 -0500 2002-09-05, Brant Langer Gurganus wrote:
> >It appears that nearly 75% of W3C members are not following the very 
> >guidelines they help create.
> >
> >http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-956778.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news

Having an artist in a family doesn't necessarily means everyone craves
his or her work. The situation with W3C members may be the same, 
I don't know, I can't and won't speak for all W3C members.

My only experience is that my W3C Host, Keio university/Shonan Fujisawa
Campus, has most pages on its site valid, and that's partly because some
people from the W3C Team helped and convinced them it was important.
http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/
On the other hand, the global home for Keio university is invalid...

I wish the survey continues, in order to see whether these figures
should make me sad or optimistic. A possible conclusion, today, would be
that if "we" want to convince people to respect web standards, there may
not be any "easy target".


On Thu, Sep 05, 2002, Karl Dubost wrote:
 
> For example, it would be good to define a relative scale of validity 
> for a whole website.

But then again, how do you define the proportion of valid/invalid
material? in volume? number of pages? bytes?

I like the "traffic approach" that Gerald Oskoboiny had developed in his
"top-invalid tool"[1] - ancestor to the LogValidator[2].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2001Sep/0031.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/LogValidator/

What's the traffic approach? Imagine you have 4 documents on a site
(we'll call them 1,2,3 and 4), accounting for, resp. 40%, 30%, 20% and
10% of the traffic for this site. 

Now imagine that documents 1 and 4 are invalid. that's 50% of the
documents, and 50% of the traffic, and that's bad. If you have time to
fix both documents, fine, but if you have time to fix only one?

The usual approach woud be that, well, just fix one and you'll have only
25% of the documents that are invalid. The traffic approach says, fix
document 1 and go up to 90% of your traffic being valid.

That may sound ridiculous with 4 documents, but when it's 40000, with a
lot of legacy, unmaintained documents, you're happy when you can go from
50% valid to 90% valid by fixing only 25% of the documents.


I'm preparing an article/LogV tutorial that explains this and other
ideas to "fix" better, so stay tuned.


> So we have work.

Now that's a summary :)

-- 
Olivier Thereaux - W3C
http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 02:06:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 July 2011 00:13:21 GMT