W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: w3.org site-wide markup review?

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:45:22 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikE9iP9s=J+n1rxMyTiw2R1ZJj+r0XhXeakTGKJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 1 February 2011 18:55, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

> w3.org has a very large number of pages. I don't expect to fix all of them.
> I focus on the ones that are brought to my attention. We use some tools
> internally (and have used more historically, but less so now) to check for
> validity, for instance.

But for heaven's sake (despite Jonathan's comment), it isn't 1998!

The fact that there are a large number of pages is exactly the reason
relying on one person at the end of an email address to fix them is a
bad idea.

Tools do become less useful over time and fall into disuse if they're
not actively maintained. But as strategies go, doing without tools
isn't very sound.

> I agree that a page might be broken and not reported. And tools help us
> catch some of those.

I bet the Amaya page wasn't the first reported with problems re. fixed
px value. Wouldn't it be a wee bit more efficient if rather than
reports like these triggering the correction of that single page, they
triggered the addition of an extra check to a tool with site-wide
coverage..?

>> For an
>> organisation who's raison d'etre is to improve the Web, their Web
>> presence should be as good as possible: "good enough" *isn't*. It goes
>> down to credibility.
>
> I agree that we have to maintain high standards on our site. Credibility
> will be derived from a number of factors. We don't have budget for all of
> them, alas.

Regarding budget, prevention of problems usually costs less than
repair. A stitch in time etc, This is especially true when it comes to
credibility, which is much easier to lose than regain. Are the W3C's
offices protected by sprinklers and fire insurance or a man with a
bucket?

I'd also love to know what factors impact credibility more than the
public (and industry) face of the organisation. What you might call
the World Wide Web aspect of the W3C.

Cheers,
Danny.


-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 19:47:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:36 GMT