W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: These are accessible? I'm not sure they are

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:45:58 -0000
Message-ID: <005101c1d18e$c05f0b20$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>

> > (for example, the 13% of people who disable scripts even though the
> > is capable of running scripts)
> I'd be interested in a source for this.

The normally quoted source is thecounter.com, the problems with their
statistics are that they certainly aren't representative (the average
site gets ~100 visitors and it could just be the site owner checking
their site for javascript or in different browsers.)  thecounter.com's
counter domains are also quite often filtered out as they can ruin the
loading time of table based sites containing the counter.  Their
javascript is also rather poor, and likely to error in many browsers
(meaning they believe them to be script disabled.)

> I'm one of them, but I reckon
> that I'm the only one in my company, making the figure about 1.6%, and
> I would have thought that in the mass market the figure was lower.

Even saying that I don't find thecounter.com representative, I believe
that is too low from support experience.

> It would be rather telling if true, given the number of even blue chip
> sites (latest I found was KPMG) that blank screen without scripting,
> and the even greater number that are un-navigable without it.

Unfortunately so many sites only need to work for the developer and their
clients - people do not complain when sites don't work (unless they
_really_ need the functionality and then all too frequently the
complaints end with the designer who will ignore them.) they just go

Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 05:48:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC