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 22:18:30 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTik_FALtTf-W_krJBk=x+-ovdgDzHoU8FMTRouE-@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 21:01, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>> 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.
> To name two:
> * The quality of the content

Ok, that's true enough in general. But when much of the content is
about recommendations, guidelines etc, when those recommendations and
guidelines aren't followed to (and even beyond) the letter on the
site, problems that would be considered trivial elsewhere become

For example the recent comment with the gloriously vitriolic subject
"W3 still a leader in inconsistency and hypocrisy" [1]. I had hoped
for something really meaty when that landed in my inbox. Alas its
primary evidence was that http://www.w3.org/ has an effective body
font size of 88.56%, somewhat contrary to the QA suggestion "Avoid
sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body".

Fair enough, that's quite an extreme reaction, but it does show how
sensitive people can be to these things. In essence it's perfectly
rational, I'd think twice about buying a book on photography which had
an unintentionally blurred cover.

> * The quality of the environment in which people work

Sorry, you lost me there.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2011Jan/0018.html

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 21:21:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:36 UTC