- From: Tom Gilder <w3c@tom.me.uk>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 06:25:33 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 9:14:51 PM, David Woolley wrote:
> The web page backing the article is at:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/intouch_factsheet.shtml
I so hate this. I want to praise these awards for increasing the
awareness of accessibility (which they are). But they seem to be doing
*such* a crap job at it.
I had a very brief look through the winners, let me see...
* The British Museum Compass
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/
First page has a meta refresh. Beyond that, better than most.
* Dial UK
http://www.dialuk.org.uk/
As scripting was disabled in my browser, I got no style at first
due to their poor client-side browser sniffing. Otherwise good for
accessibility (if a little verbose on the alt text).
* Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
I'm sorry? How on earth did this win an award for accessibility?
Just look at it in Lynx - <http://tinyurl.com/3hu1>! Although the
content is quite good, the surrounding design is very poor.
I just don't know how this could win over BBC News
(http://news.bbc.co.uk) or Ananova (http://www.ananova.com/news/).
Madness.
* The Local Heritage Initiative
http://www.lhi.org.uk/
Very good.
* National Maritime Museum
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/
Hrm. Ok-ish. Could be better (and why does the text-only version's
link to the graphical version say "HTML version"...?)
* Whichbook
http://www.whichbook.net/
Whilst they have made clear attempts at making their site more
accessible, it's a shame some people won't be able to get into the
site in the first place - http://tinyurl.com/3hu5.
I really fail to understand how these awards have been worked out.
There are many, many more deserving sites than the few that have won
them. Very odd indeed.
But I have to say well done for the organizers for attempting
something like this, and to the BBC for covering the story.
--
Tom Gilder
http://tom.me.uk/
Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 01:25:43 UTC