W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: w3.org site-wide markup review?

From: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:14:10 +1100
Message-ID: <4D4893C2.4050306@e-beer.net.au>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

Why not start an "adopt a page" concept - members orgs and regular users 
could adopt a page or a number of pages and check validity and currency. 
Source code changes could simply be sent in and the page re-uploaded 
with the new code.

Just a thought. :)


On 2/2/2011 6:45 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 1 February 2011 18:55, Ian Jacobs<ij@w3.org>  wrote:
>> w3.org has a very large number of pages. I don't expect to fix all of them.
>> I focus on the ones that are brought to my attention. We use some tools
>> internally (and have used more historically, but less so now) to check for
>> validity, for instance.
> But for heaven's sake (despite Jonathan's comment), it isn't 1998!
> The fact that there are a large number of pages is exactly the reason
> relying on one person at the end of an email address to fix them is a
> bad idea.
> Tools do become less useful over time and fall into disuse if they're
> not actively maintained. But as strategies go, doing without tools
> isn't very sound.
>> I agree that a page might be broken and not reported. And tools help us
>> catch some of those.
> I bet the Amaya page wasn't the first reported with problems re. fixed
> px value. Wouldn't it be a wee bit more efficient if rather than
> reports like these triggering the correction of that single page, they
> triggered the addition of an extra check to a tool with site-wide
> coverage..?
>>> For an
>>> organisation who's raison d'etre is to improve the Web, their Web
>>> presence should be as good as possible: "good enough" *isn't*. It goes
>>> down to credibility.
>> I agree that we have to maintain high standards on our site. Credibility
>> will be derived from a number of factors. We don't have budget for all of
>> them, alas.
> Regarding budget, prevention of problems usually costs less than
> repair. A stitch in time etc, This is especially true when it comes to
> credibility, which is much easier to lose than regain. Are the W3C's
> offices protected by sprinklers and fire insurance or a man with a
> bucket?
> I'd also love to know what factors impact credibility more than the
> public (and industry) face of the organisation. What you might call
> the World Wide Web aspect of the W3C.
> Cheers,
> Danny.

/*Chris Beer* Invited Expert (Public Member) W3 eGovernment Interest 
Group & W3-WAI WCAG Working Group Coordinator - Better Practices in 
using Technology to Delivery Government Services Online - eGovernment IG 
Task Force EM: chris@e-beer.net.au <mailto:chris@e-beer.net.au> TW: 
@zBeer <http://www.twitter.com/zBeer> LI: http://au.linkedin.com/in/zbeer/
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 23:14:35 UTC

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