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

Re: Accessible site list - change to page address

From: C.Bottelier <c.bottelier@ITsec.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:27:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3DD35E6E.3E0EBA4E@ITsec.nl>
To: W3c_Access <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Jukka Korpela wrote:
> As regards to that page, it might be a start, but I see several problems:
> - it doesn't contain links to the pages except casually; instead the user
>   needs to copy and paste the URL, something that could _easily_ be
>   avoided
> - it does not contain a simple list of the sites but merges the essential
>   information with explanations
> - on the other hand, a link is just a pointer, and the target may change
>   without notice; what happens if a site announced as particularly
>   accessible is "redesigned"? (a link to a suitable address at archive.org
>   might be a partial solution - it might tell what the site was like
>   when it was added to the list
> - it does not clearly say what the pages are about (and neither do many
>   of the pages themselves at first glance or hearing); it's essential
>   to convince people by giving them examples that they find interesting
>   by their content too
> - it's presumably just a set of submitted pages, so it's _very_ subjective
>   (and to my subjective taste, none of the sites I checked is actually
>   great looking, and in my educated opinion, none of them is particularly
>   accessible either - they may satisfy a set of technical criteria, but
>   e.g. excessively long main pages are a real problem).

A link to the page would not suffice. At least a description of the page
(not about the contents of the page bu how it is made up) would be nice,
along with a small picture how it looked at the time of addition. I kown
not all people would be able to use the picture. To compensate for this
copy of the -- for instance the main page -- could be mirrored.

> (Ultimately, of course, accessibility is all subjective. What matters
> is whether an individual can access information and services. But to
> evaluate the overall accessibility of a site, we cannot ask every
> potential Web user, current and future, and sum it up. So we need
> evaluations that try to estimate the situation objectively, based
> partly on some individual experiences, partly on general considerations,
> reasoning, and simulations.)
> I think something between purely subjective compilations and formal
> certifications (as per ISO's certification standard to be published in
> 2022 or something) is needed. Some review "board" would probably be
> needed, no matter informal, as well as an open forum for criticizing
> the board's decisions.

When a site is submitted it could be run through a verification tool
like Bobby. This check could / should be repeated periodicly and include
the dat of the last verification along with the site listing. When a
has been redesigned and doesn't meet accessebility anymore a warning
could be send to the webmaster, and a notice should be added to the
list saying the site was redesigned. When the site is not corrected with
specified period the site would be moved to the list of inaccessible

This last step should maybe be done by hand of the 'accessebility board'
to either move it to the list of inaccessibe site or the one with less
accessible sites.

Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 03:27:31 UTC

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