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

Re: Accessible site list - change to page address

From: Jim Byrne <j.byrne@gcal.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:50:13 +0000
To: W3c_Access <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B9F93E75.15CC2%j.byrne@gcal.ac.uk>

Hi,

Thanks for the comments about the list of accessible and good looking
websites campaign (http://www.mcu.org.uk/articles/accessibletext.html). I
agree with most of what has been said:

* The current listing service is not adequate for the job (this covers many
sins as outlined in the earlier comments).

* What looks good to one person doesn't look good to another; subjectvity
plays a big part.

*Some type of peer review system would be a great idea.

As soon as I get time I will write a more tailored solution.  I'm also happy
to work with a talented and willing programmer to replace the current simple
system (they would also need to be generous - because there is no pay).
 
I don't agree that Bobby should be used to verify claims - mainly because my
experience is that the results can be very misleading; human input is still
required. Also I think - in this case - the minutia of W3C guidelines and
compliance would become the main topic - and deflect from the goals of the
campaign; to demonstrate that good design is not the opposite of accessible
design (lots more can be said to explain and expand on this).

Perhaps Bobby along with validation of the HTML could, as suggest, be used
to notify the submitter of the site of possible problems - but I don't think
the results should then appear on the list.

Much more could be said - but I'll need to think about how to address the
current weaknesses first.

All the best,
Jim
on 14/11/02 8:27 am, C.Bottelier at c.bottelier@ITsec.nl wrote:

> 
> 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
> a
> 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
> site
> has been redesigned and doesn't meet accessebility anymore a warning
> email
> 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
> a
> specified period the site would be moved to the list of inaccessible
> sites.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Christian
> 

 
-- 
Jim Byrne Project Director, The Making Connections Unit, Glasgow Caledonian
University, Glasgow G4 OBA, 0141 331 3893

Everything you need to know about publishing accessible information on the
Web.

Services: Website Accessibility Audits, Accessible Web design, Accessible
Website Management Training.

The Making Connections Unit: http://www.mcu.org.uk/
Scottish Disability Information Mailing list:
http://www.mcu.org.uk/mailinglists/
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 06:50:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT