- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:51:03 -0600
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, site-comments help <site-comments@w3.org>
On 1 Feb 2011, at 3:18 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > 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 [DROPPING WAI IG ON THEIR REQUEST} > > 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 > significant. I am not longer as well-versed in all the good practices that we publish. I do know that in the site redesign we sought to fulfill many of them. But there were some tradeoffs we made. For instance, we chose to not create a separate page for mobile devices; we tried to have the mobile and desktop versions be a single page. But as a result, we don't pass the page weight requirement necessary to be mobileOK. I would hope that people recognize that when you try to apply a large number of constraints, you may not be able to satisfy all of them perfectly. > > 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. I summarized the discussion on that topic about a year ago: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2010Jan/0012.html Felix and Gérard have asked me to revisit the question which I intend to do. > >> * The quality of the environment in which people work > > Sorry, you lost me there. W3C is a forum for discussion. If discussion in the forum is civil and constructive, people will have more of a tendency to go there than if it isn't. _ Ian > > Cheers, > Danny. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2011Jan/ > 0018.html > > > > -- > http://danny.ayers.name > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 22:51:07 UTC