- 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