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

Re: w3.org site-wide markup review?

From: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:24:27 +1100
Message-ID: <4D4922CB.5030405@e-beer.net.au>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo' <coordina@sidar.org>, 'Danny Ayers' <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, 'Ian Jacobs' <ij@w3.org>, 'Jonathan Chetwynd' <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org, 'Tim Berners-Lee' <timbl@w3.org>, matt@smiffytech.com
Thanks for the +1's. So - to make this more than an off the cuff comment 
- how would we make this idea work in reality.

Something as simple as an "adopt this page" widget, similar to a "rate 
this page" that you see on many sites?

How do we make it work for those without a w3 account? Something that 
takes you to a simple form for minor details like preferred name or the 
like if you aren't already logged in with a W3 account?. Then once a 
page is adopted, the user's name appears on there?

Do we begin with a mail out to member groups and public members asking 
for them to nominate a page to become a Page Friend for? (Just saw 
Matthew's message :) )

Thoughts?

Cheers

C.

-- 
/*Chris Beer* Invited Expert (Public Member) W3 eGovernment Interest 
Group & W3-WAI WCAG Working Group
EM: chris@e-beer.net.au <mailto:chris@e-beer.net.au>
TW: @zBeer <http://www.twitter.com/zBeer>
LI: http://au.linkedin.com/in/zbeer/

On 2/2/2011 8:04 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>
> So ya’ know Ian, this idea has some legs IMHO. Surely we have more 
> friends than pages?  I add my +1 to this too.
>
> *From:*w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 01, 2011 5:07 PM
> *To:* chris@e-beer.net.au; 'Danny Ayers'
> *Cc:* 'Ian Jacobs'; 'Jonathan Chetwynd'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; 
> site-comments@w3.org; 'Tim Berners-Lee'
> *Subject:* RE: w3.org site-wide markup review?
>
> +1 for the “adopt a page” idea.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Emmanuelle
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> /Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo/
>
> Directora de la Fundación Sidar
>
> Coordinadora del Seminario SIDAR
>
> www.sidar.org
>
> email: coordina@sidar.org / emmanuelle@sidar.org
>
> *De:*w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] *En 
> nombre de *Chris Beer
> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 02 de febrero de 2011 0:14
> *Para:* Danny Ayers
> *CC:* Ian Jacobs; Jonathan Chetwynd; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; 
> site-comments@w3.org; Tim Berners-Lee
> *Asunto:* Re: w3.org site-wide markup review?
>
> All
>
> Why not start an "adopt a page" concept - members orgs and regular 
> users could adopt a page or a number of pages and check validity and 
> currency. Source code changes could simply be sent in and the page 
> re-uploaded with the new code.
>
> Just a thought. :)
>
> Chris
>
> On 2/2/2011 6:45 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
> On 1 February 2011 18:55, Ian Jacobs<ij@w3.org>  <mailto: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://au.linkedin.com/in/zbeer>/
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 09:24:52 GMT

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