- From: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:14:10 +1100
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: 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>
- Message-ID: <4D4893C2.4050306@e-beer.net.au>
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> 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. > > -- /*Chris Beer* Invited Expert (Public Member) W3 eGovernment Interest Group & W3-WAI WCAG Working Group Coordinator - Better Practices in using Technology to Delivery Government Services Online - eGovernment IG Task Force 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/
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 23:15:38 UTC