W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: searching for good sites

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <signbrowser@signbrowser.free-online.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:43:22 -0000
Message-ID: <001301be3748$f375a8e0$557138d4@signbrowser.free-online.net>
To: "Jonathan Chetwynd" <jonathan@peepo.com>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

>This is some research I have wanted to do an have not done.  Would you be
>willing to post a web page somewhere with search URLs representing the best
>you have found?

I have only been on the www 6 months so do not expect too much.

I would certainly be interested in links to interactive sites with little or
no text, please send them to me.

Links to interactive sites with little or no text:  http://www.peepo.com ~40

Our Science Museum Visit in a few words and sounds:

Our Horniman Visit, the students' thoughts written by them:

Search by subject using symbols:

>>Why is their not a search engine that uses personal Qualia to refine the
>I would be inclined to suspect that it is a combination of performance and
>understanding issues.  The kind of query language that you or I might put
>together could have to be interpreted against each page visited by the
>spider.  That would not be an acceptable performance burden.  But if we can
>demonstrate in an interpretive environment that certain qualia are
>effective in finding the "good sites" for a given user interface mode,
>then we can look at how to formulate affordable statistics that could be
>incorporated in the indexing and would be nearly as effective as the
>rifle-shot qualia tailored exactly to the user need.

A word count is ~ no extra work for a spider.

>unfortunately due to the nature of HTML it is a little more than~0<.

ie finding the words, rather than counting them.

>The W3C is in the process of organizing a "Web assessment" activity, and
>the WAI has an opportunity to influence the shape this activity takes.
>This is of interest at least to the EO group because they want to
>understand our audience for outreach, and the Evaluation and Repair group
>because what you are talking about are evaluation techniques.

I have subscribed thanks for the nod.

>WAI-ER gives you a chance that some of your ideas for "Qualia" may be
>supported by programming by others.  Please consider airing your ideas
>further in the ER Interest Group.

To be sure once I have seen a little of what goes on I shall.

Received on Sunday, 3 January 1999 13:44:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:03 UTC