Re: Frames sites.

to follow up on what Mike Burks said:

> I agree this is one of the most inaccessible sites I have ever
> seen.  In addition it takes to long to load if it loads at all.
> Basically a terrible site all around....any chance we could put
> up a list of inaccessible sites and include this one on it?

This is a good question.  It falls in the area of clarifying the
scopes of the EO and RC groups.

But you have to think beyond "we could put up a list," which we
could, to "we could maintain a list" which is a much larger
commitment.

In the mean time there is a good list of bad sites on the
webwatch-l home page at
<http://www.teleport.com/~kford/webwatch.htm>.

The question of how much the W3C website should get in your face
with this kind of information is squarely in the department of
the WAI-EO group.  They have to follow through on any policy so
it is good that the policy come from their pen.  But they should
be convincing the WAI-IG that they are pursuing the right sort of
policy.

Supporting them with good data is potentially a job for the
WAI-RC group.  There is a caucus space open at
where people can share in deciding how much
that group is going to bite off.  Partnership with webwatch-l,
for example, might come out of the WAI-RC group.

To join the mission and scope discussion for WAI-RC revisit

  w3c-wai-ig@w3.org from January to March 1998: Call for discussion RC IG

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1998JanMar/0236.html

Al Gilman