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 16:51:03 -0600
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <45747637-F2DA-44F4-8964-1DFD2D5E9AB7@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, site-comments help <site-comments@w3.org>

On 1 Feb 2011, at 3:18 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> On 1 February 2011 21:01, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>> 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

[DROPPING WAI IG ON THEIR REQUEST}

>
> Ok, that's true enough in general. But when much of the content is
> about recommendations, guidelines etc, when those recommendations and
> guidelines aren't followed to (and even beyond) the letter on the
> site, problems that would be considered trivial elsewhere become
> significant.

I am not longer as well-versed in all the good practices that we  
publish. I do know that in the site redesign we sought to fulfill many  
of them. But there were some tradeoffs we made. For instance, we chose  
to not create a separate page for mobile devices; we tried to have the  
mobile and desktop versions be a single page. But as a result, we  
don't pass the page weight requirement necessary to be mobileOK. I  
would hope that people recognize that when you try to apply a large  
number of constraints, you may not be able to satisfy all of them  
perfectly.

>
> For example the recent comment with the gloriously vitriolic subject
> "W3 still a leader in inconsistency and hypocrisy" [1]. I had hoped
> for something really meaty when that landed in my inbox. Alas its
> primary evidence was that http://www.w3.org/ has an effective body
> font size of 88.56%, somewhat contrary to the QA suggestion "Avoid
> sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body".
>
> Fair enough, that's quite an extreme reaction, but it does show how
> sensitive people can be to these things. In essence it's perfectly
> rational, I'd think twice about buying a book on photography which had
> an unintentionally blurred cover.

I summarized the discussion on that topic about a year ago:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2010Jan/0012.html

Felix and Gérard have asked me to revisit the question which I intend  
to do.

>
>> * The quality of the environment in which people work
>
> Sorry, you lost me there.

W3C is a forum for discussion. If discussion in the forum is civil and  
constructive, people will have more of a tendency to go there than if  
it isn't.

  _ Ian

>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2011Jan/ 
> 0018.html
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://danny.ayers.name
>

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 22:51:07 GMT

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