W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > August 2000

Re: New W3C Site Design

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:09:00 -0400
Message-ID: <39A6EE7C.2401738C@w3.org>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
CC: "'site-comments@w3.org'" <site-comments@w3.org>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
"Bailey, Bruce" wrote:
> Hmm.
> I like that they claim AA WCAG compliance, but...
> Seems to me they violate (P2) Checkpoint 5.3:  Do not use tables for layout
> unless the table makes sense when linearized.
> How is [NavBar] [W3C Links: A to Z] [News and Content] [More Links and
> Search] [NavBar] a logical reading order?

That's precisely the order of objects on the page!

> One could also argue that since the W3C banner logo is nothing more than
> stylized text, that it should be rendered with CSS rather than as a graphic.
> That's (P2) Checkpoint 11.1:  Use W3C technologies when they are available
> and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported.

However, CSS Web fonts are not supported. When SVG is supported, we
will probably replace it with an SVG image.
> Len Kasday has pointed out that they violate the spirit if not the letter of
> (P2) 3.5:  Use header elements to convey document structure and use them
> according to specification.

That we will be looking into.

> I like the new home page, but I think, in all honestly, they should drop the
> Double A rating claim.
> Just my two cents!

I disagree (and that's telling that there's disagreement among
WG members) except for the header issue.

Respectfully yours,

 - Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 3:51 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: New W3C Site Design
> When I looked today, I discovered another new redesign of the
> W3C site, http://www.w3.org/ -- there's a link at the bottom
> that asks for comments:
> W3C Site Comments Welcome
> We welcome your comments and suggestions on this page in the
> site comments discussion forum.
> The link is to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/
> which isn't really a "discussion forum" but a public archive
> of the site comments distribution list.  It doesn't seem to
> tell -how- to contribute your comments (a serious problem in
> documentation/usability), but from context it appears you can
> send your comments to:
>       site-comments@w3.org
> It would be interesting to hear what users with disabilities
> think of the accessibility of this site, as well as general
> comments about the appearance and usability of the W3C site.
> --Kynn
> Disclaimer:  I'm not a W3C person asking for this, I'm just
> someone who's noticed this and is nosy.  This isn't an official
> request from the W3C at all, although they -have- requested
> input via the notice on the bottom of the page.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 25 August 2000 18:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 18 April 2022 20:33:39 UTC