- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:54:17 -0600
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 1 Feb 2011, at 8:45 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 3:49 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: > >> For reasons I forget, I'm subscribed to site-comments@w3.org, >> archived >> at [1]. Aside from a recent flurry about how wonderful the new HTML5 >> material is (and requests for stickers - me too!) the majority of >> messages seem to be about questionable markup on the site. I don't >> know what processes are already in place for checking the >> accessibility and usability of pages, but that there are any messages >> of this nature suggests that things aren't quite as joined-up as they >> should be in W3C-land. >> >> Ok, there are things that will slip through any net. The use of CSS >> fixed px font sizes seems to be an example, it doesn't seem to be >> checked by the online validators I tried (applied to the page >> http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ - though contrast issues were flagged). But >> given the W3C's key role in producing the relevant specs and >> guidelines, there's a good case for saying its own pages should be >> subject to far higher standards of quality control than any other on >> the Web. Best practices, leading by example and all that. >> >> A good way for dealing with this would be for the W3C to instigate an >> independent review, and to put automated processes* in place to >> ensure >> continuing quality of material. Ok, such things would cost non- >> trivial >> time & money, but even if the point of principle wasn't enough, the >> surprising amount of hostility in some of the messages to >> site-comments extrapolates to much wider, unvoiced, annoyance or at >> least dissatisfaction. i.e. this is a credibility issue, very bad for >> PR. > > Hi Danny, > > I appreciate any offer of tools to help us maintain pages that > people use, and where the tool ends up lowering our costs. > > This list is one way people raise awareness about page problems, and > I read the list and fix the ones that we are maintaining and can be > fixed. > [Follow-up] Another way to say this is: a site-wide review is not as interesting to me as fixing real problems that people encounter. _Ian >> >> Whatever, perhaps there's a cheaper solution. I'm guessing there are >> plenty of companies working in the WAI space with products to sell. >> If >> one were to apply their tooling to the w3.org site, it would be a >> great demonstration for them - and maybe they could be given some >> appropriate stickers :) >> >> Any takers? >> >> Cheers, >> Danny. >> >> * automated process - not rocket science, I bet the necessary kit is >> around nearby, might even already be assembled (but no doubt in need >> of updating). I reckon it would need the following: >> >> 1. (a quick review of the EARL vocab) >> 2. a triplestore (an online one with SPARQL endpoint would be good >> transparency) >> 3. a dataset listing individuals/groups responsible for the various >> areas of the W3C site (and maintainers of tools like spec-doc >> generators) >> 4. a HTML, CSS, RDF (and any other relevant formats) validator and a >> fine-grained, ultra-sensitive checker (some kind of fussy lint) >> 5. a spider hooked up to 4. pumping EARL data into 3. >> 6. a bugtrack/notification system, sending reports to the people in >> 3. >> *and* confirming action is taken >> >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/ >> >> -- >> http://danny.ayers.name >> > > -- > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ > Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 14:55:25 UTC