W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Media: Olympics Site Targets Disabled

From: Simon White <simon.white@jkd.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:41:56 +0100
Message-ID: <FDFC0668A850D246BC4231715D94904E0CD9F0@uranus.jkd.co.uk>
To: "Tom Gilder" <w3c@tom.me.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org>, "David Sloan" <DSloan@computing.dundee.ac.uk>
Dear Tom,
That is the URL I was also referring to. I cannot see how they can claim accessibility for disabled users when even the homepage has numerous errors. As an advocate for Web accessibility I wonder where this leaves us when institutions like the BBC report what is, in effect, rubbish/garbage...

Perhaps there is another website they are talking about, but it is not one that I can find...

Shall we pitch to build a new one using members from this list? Possibly the only way to get a fully accessible Olympics website, or at least this is how it seems to me.

These are all personal opinions, however, there should surely be some kind of delegation from the Web accessibility groups from around the world that can advise these people, and not just from the W3C. It is down to all of us to help these people get it right.

Further on from my earlier post, I still have not had a reply, automated or manual, from the webmaster...

Kind regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Gilder [mailto:w3c@tom.me.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:30
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org; David Sloan
Subject: Re: Media: Olympics Site Targets Disabled

On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, 11:03:18 AM, David Sloan wrote:
> "Athens is claiming an Olympic first this week as organisers for the 2004
> Games unveil what they say is the first website in the Olympic family to
> meet international standards for disabled access."
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1868000/1868566.stm

They're talking about http://www.athens.olympic.org/ ?

A page that redirects, gives me a message about having scripting disabled, is
nowhere near valid HTML, isn't searchable without scripting, has a drop-down
that only works with scripting, doesn't have alt text for all images, uses
deprecated and bloated HTML elements such as <font>, is that enough?

Better than previous efforts, yes - but nowhere near any "international
standards for disabled access" that I know of.

Tom Gilder

VirusChecked by the Incepta Group plc
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 07:42:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:19 UTC