- From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:17:53 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>, Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Cc: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Good thought Charles, but you can't subscribe to that list you can only look at the web archieves. I think that list should either be opened up to allow proper discussion or some of the people responsible should join this list. As I said in a previous mail I am aware of a move to improve the site, but I think it would be a mistake not to listen to the experts and regular users of the site on this mailing list. 2 more of my pence, Tom On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:06:42 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org> wrote: > > I agree that the WAI website is not that clear, and so not the most > useful link to give people. Links into bits of the site on the other > hand are some of my most important resources. > > But I think moving the discussion to the wai-site-comments list is > appropriate - I am probably the only regular participant here with the > actual access required to change the site, and it would be a major > breach of my job conditions to do so. The people who read that list, on > the other hand, are explicitly authorised to change the site. > > Sadly, I don't see much value in going further on this list unless you > are actively trying to get a group of people to sign up to a particular > message being sent, or unless you have a particular question you think > it is valuable to discuss. (I haven't noticed anyone on this list > suggest that the WAI site is already perfect, so that's not an > interesting question ;-) > > just my two pesetas, of course... > > Charles > > On Monday, Oct 13, 2003, at 08:10 Europe/Zurich, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > >> >> I'll third this review. >> >> I've raised this issue on so many occasions over the past ~4-5 years >> that I'd just about given up on ever seeing anything done about it. >> check the thread "QED & Marshall McLuhan" about demonstrating rather >> than talking about..... >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999AprJun/0361.html >> >> The failure to use plain English, and ' not really communicating what >> it's even about' are particular problems. >> I find outreach extremely difficult as most people find WAI deeply >> geeky. >> The rationale as explained to me is that the 'audience' is software >> developers. >> Working in education, as I do, means that nearly all the work on >> business use is irrelevant, at least in the introduction. >> >> The nearest to something reasonable might be >> http://www.w3.org/Talks/WAI-Intro/slide1-0.html >> However slide 2 has to be seen to be believed. if an explanation is >> needed, wouldn't a help link be sufficient? >> >> shifting the discussion to wai-site-comments@w3.org isn't appropriate. >> A major change of function is required, and this effects all members, >> not just website admin. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 02:51 pm, Jens Meiert wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi *, >>> >>> >>> the following part is not supposed to be an allegation, but only a >>> factual >>> remark -- when I just visited the WAI Web site (I often look at the >>> source >>> code first when visiting a site; sort of developer syndrome, I guess), >>> some more >>> or less important issues striked me, most of them related to >>> Accessibility, >>> as a matter of course. >>> >>> So I e.g. wondered why the WAI doesn't use Accesskeys on its site, nor >>> is it >>> fulfilling the own goals in relation to table use (the tables don't >>> comply >>> with real data tables, and they don't use any <caption />, either, as >>> discussed in about 1,000 mails before). The WAI also passes on >>> alternative styles >>> (e.g. for aural use) and it also uses color schemes where I don't know >>> if they >>> are that perfect (because of the minor contrast). >>> >>> There are of course several other topics related to this WAI >>> figurehead, but >>> I'm too lazy to list them all, so I only decided to put an additional >>> Bobby >>> analysis link in here: >>> >>> http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bobbyServlet? >>> URL=http://www.w3.org/WAI/&output=Submit&gl=wcag1-aaa&test= >>> >>> -- By the way, although the WAI Web site might be a quite simple site, >>> it >>> also brings up some Usability problems by not really communicating >>> what it's >>> even about, and breaking standards by e.g. linking the WAI logo to the >>> WAI Web >>> site (although you're already there; it's recommended not to link to >>> the >>> start page if you're quite there) or putting the navigation to the >>> right side. >>> And 'switch column layout' is just an unnecessary and confusing >>> gimmick. >>> >>> Only some thoughts to lead the Web to its full potential ;) And >>> seriously: I >>> think the WAI WG should set a good example, and it should be in our own >>> interest to show how it's done best. >>> >>> >>> All the best, >>> Jens. >>> >>> >>> -- Jens Meiert >>> Interface Architect >>> >>> http://meiert.com >>> >>> >> Jonathan Chetwynd >> http://www.peepo.co.uk >> "A web by people with learning difficulties" >> >> > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Fundación Sidar > charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
Received on Monday, 13 October 2003 10:18:22 UTC