RE: w3.org site-wide markup review?

+1 for the “adopt a page” idea.

 

Best regards,

Emmanuelle

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo

Directora de la Fundación Sidar

Coordinadora del Seminario SIDAR

www.sidar.org

email: coordina@sidar.org / emmanuelle@sidar.org

 

 

 

De: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] En nombre de Chris Beer
Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de febrero de 2011 0:14
Para: Danny Ayers
CC: Ian Jacobs; Jonathan Chetwynd; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; site-comments@w3.org; Tim Berners-Lee
Asunto: Re: w3.org site-wide markup review?

 

All

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. :)

Chris

On 2/2/2011 6:45 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: 

On 1 February 2011 18:55, Ian Jacobs  <mailto:ij@w3.org> <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 TW: @zBeer <http://www.twitter.com/zBeer>  LI: http://au.linkedin.com/in/zbeer