W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > February 2011

Re: w3.org site-wide markup review?

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:01:26 -0600
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <50DB305E-A5A3-4A95-A2DD-4B9CB3B77A27@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

On 1 Feb 2011, at 1:45 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> On 1 February 2011 18:55, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> w3.org has a very large number of pages. I don't expect to fix all  
>> of them.
>> I focus on the ones that are brought to my attention. We use some  
>> tools
>> internally (and have used more historically, but less so now) to  
>> check for
>> validity, for instance.
>
> But for heaven's sake (despite Jonathan's comment), it isn't 1998!
>
> The fact that there are a large number of pages is exactly the reason
> relying on one person at the end of an email address to fix them is a
> bad idea.
>
> Tools do become less useful over time and fall into disuse if they're
> not actively maintained. But as strategies go, doing without tools
> isn't very sound.
>
>> I agree that a page might be broken and not reported. And tools  
>> help us
>> catch some of those.
>
> I bet the Amaya page wasn't the first reported with problems re. fixed
> px value. Wouldn't it be a wee bit more efficient if rather than
> reports like these triggering the correction of that single page, they
> triggered the addition of an extra check to a tool with site-wide
> coverage..?

Of course good tools are good.

>
>>> For an
>>> organisation who's raison d'etre is to improve the Web, their Web
>>> presence should be as good as possible: "good enough" *isn't*. It  
>>> goes
>>> down to credibility.
>>
>> I agree that we have to maintain high standards on our site.  
>> Credibility
>> will be derived from a number of factors. We don't have budget for  
>> all of
>> them, alas.
>
> Regarding budget, prevention of problems usually costs less than
> repair. A stitch in time etc, This is especially true when it comes to
> credibility, which is much easier to lose than regain. Are the W3C's
> offices protected by sprinklers and fire insurance or a man with a
> bucket?

Nice image.

> I'd also love to know what factors impact credibility more than the
> public (and industry) face of the organisation. What you might call
> the World Wide Web aspect of the W3C.

To name two:

* The quality of the content
* The quality of the environment in which people work

_Ian
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 20:01:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:33 GMT