W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: WAI Web site remarks and suggestions

From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:17:53 +0100
Cc: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>, Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Message-ID: <oprwzjb3r0u930jj@mail.icet.co.uk>

Good thought Charles, but you can't subscribe to that list you can only 
look at the web archieves. I think that list should either be opened up to 
allow proper discussion or some of the people responsible should join this 
list. As I said in a previous mail I am aware of a move to improve the 
site, but I think it would be a mistake not to listen to the experts and 
regular users of the site on this mailing list.

2 more of my pence,


On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:06:42 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile 
<charles@sidar.org> wrote:

> I agree that the WAI website is not that clear, and so not the most 
> useful link to give people. Links into bits of the site on the other 
> hand are some of my most important resources.
> But I think moving the discussion to the wai-site-comments list is 
> appropriate - I am probably the only regular participant here with the 
> actual access required to change the site, and it would be a major 
> breach of my job conditions to do so. The people who read that list, on 
> the other hand, are explicitly authorised to change the site.
> Sadly, I don't see much value in going further on this list unless you 
> are actively trying to get a group of people to sign up to a particular 
> message being sent, or unless you have a particular question you think 
> it is valuable to discuss. (I haven't noticed anyone on this list 
> suggest that the WAI site is already perfect, so that's not an 
> interesting question ;-)
> just my two pesetas, of course...
> Charles
> On Monday, Oct 13, 2003, at 08:10 Europe/Zurich, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>> I'll third this review.
>> I've raised this issue on so many occasions over the past ~4-5 years 
>> that I'd just about given up on ever seeing anything done about it.
>> check the thread "QED & Marshall McLuhan" about demonstrating rather 
>> than talking about.....
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999AprJun/0361.html
>> The failure to use plain English, and ' not really communicating what 
>> it's even about' are particular problems.
>> I find outreach extremely difficult as most people find WAI deeply 
>> geeky.
>> The rationale as explained to me is that the 'audience' is software 
>> developers.
>> Working in education, as I do, means that nearly all the work on 
>> business use is irrelevant, at least in the introduction.
>> The nearest to something reasonable might be
>> http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/slide1-0.html
>> However slide 2 has to be seen to be believed. if an explanation is 
>> needed, wouldn't a help link be sufficient?
>> shifting the discussion to wai-site-comments@w3.org isn't appropriate.
>> A major change of function is required, and this effects all members, 
>> not just website admin.
>> Jonathan
>> On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 02:51  pm, Jens Meiert wrote:
>>> Hi *,
>>> the following part is not supposed to be an allegation, but only a 
>>> factual
>>> remark -- when I just visited the WAI Web site (I often look at the 
>>> source
>>> code first when visiting a site; sort of developer syndrome, I guess), 
>>> some more
>>> or less important issues striked me, most of them related to 
>>> Accessibility,
>>> as a matter of course.
>>> So I e.g. wondered why the WAI doesn't use Accesskeys on its site, nor 
>>> is it
>>> fulfilling the own goals in relation to table use (the tables don't 
>>> comply
>>> with real data tables, and they don't use any <caption />, either, as
>>> discussed in about 1,000 mails before). The WAI also passes on 
>>> alternative styles
>>> (e.g. for aural use) and it also uses color schemes where I don't know 
>>> if they
>>> are that perfect (because of the minor contrast).
>>> There are of course several other topics related to this WAI 
>>> figurehead, but
>>> I'm too lazy to list them all, so I only decided to put an additional 
>>> Bobby
>>> analysis link in here:
>>>    http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bobbyServlet?
>>>    URL=http://www.w3.org/WAI/&output=Submit&gl=wcag1-aaa&test=
>>> -- By the way, although the WAI Web site might be a quite simple site, 
>>> it
>>> also brings up some Usability problems by not really communicating 
>>> what it's
>>> even about, and breaking standards by e.g. linking the WAI logo to the 
>>> WAI Web
>>> site (although you're already there; it's recommended not to link to 
>>> the
>>> start page if you're quite there) or putting the navigation to the 
>>> right side.
>>> And 'switch column layout' is just an unnecessary and confusing 
>>> gimmick.
>>> Only some thoughts to lead the Web to its full potential ;) And 
>>> seriously: I
>>> think the WAI WG should set a good example, and it should be in our own
>>> interest to show how it's done best.
>>> All the best,
>>>  Jens.
>>> -- Jens Meiert
>>> Interface Architect
>>> http://meiert.com
>> Jonathan Chetwynd
>> http://www.peepo.co.uk
>> "A web by people with learning difficulties"
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
> charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
Received on Monday, 13 October 2003 10:18:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:25 UTC