Re: w3.org site-wide markup review?

Morning! I would gladly contribute to this initiative as well. I think it's a great idea.


/Denis

On 2011-02-02, at 04:04, "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 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> 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 TW: @zBeer LI: http://au.linkedin.com/in/zbeer