Those people could speak for themselves the "many" who "will disagree
with me". You presume to speak for many others. Me generalising, when
you speak for "many" others. Really Andrea!
No I am not generalising, I am quoting from some research I did on
.gov.au websites 22 federal .gov.au sites.
A fair sample to scientifically make conclusions (you call them
generalisations) about government websites. Other studies by John
Allsopp also found entrenched HTML errors that have not changed for
years.
This is science Andrae, not speculation, have you glanced at the
webreviews of .gov.au sites, I updated it last week, all the same
errors are there and why can't they be fixed, because of attitudes
that it is too hard, or attitudes that they have already been tested. I
have personal correspondence from AGIMO with statements to the effect
that near enough is good enough. Not for me.
Australian governement sites have on average more HTML errors and fewer
accessibility features than UK sites.
This is a FACT not a generalisation. .gov.au sites had an average of 33
HTML validation errors per page.
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/Results.html
The people employed to make gov.au websites, are you referring to
AGIMO, what a joke they are with their awards to sites which have real
problems for any bot to traverse their broken code.
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html#roadready
Don't take it personally Andrea, I never suggested that you were an
idiot, just that you were incorrect on a point, and compounded that
mistake by stating that I generalised when you presume to speak for
many others. Perhaps when you have worked there you cannot see the wood
for the trees.
Keeping hereticpress.com validated and accessible is not easy at all,
there is a lot of password protected content not on the public sitemap.
Tim
On 24/01/2007, at 1:49 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2007 1:19 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists
No Andreas
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html
Australian gov websites are not tested for accessibility before they
are launched.
I am sure there are lots of people on this list that will disagree
with you
on that point, as many of us have been employed at some stage to test
government websites for accessibility and usability. You might be
generalising a bit there.
Of course there are still government websites out there that have not
been
tested and that should be improved. But those are mostly old websites.
As
far as I know accessibility compliance is a requirement for every new
govt
website project that is out for tender.
They are not even changed years later when someone points out the
errors.
They stay are they were launched full of the same errors everyday.
Cenbtrelink's website has had the same errors for three years that I
know of.
Why are you making excuses for shoddy work and pretending that
reviewers caught them on an off day?
Everyday when I change a page I check the validation and
accessibility,
why can't .gov do the same
Because the people that modify the content on a govt websites are not
website developers. They have a life outside the Internet, don't know
how
HTML works and probably don't care to know how it works. For a good
reason:
it's not their job and you can't make it their job.
Of course there are people employed by the government whose job it is
to
make sure the sites are accessible. But there are such huge amounts of
changes happening on govt websites every day that you cannot possibly
expect
them to test their sites every day for accessibility.
You make excuses for those breaching the 1992 Discrimination
Disability
Act Andreas
and that could potentially cause you a lot of trouble
What dream are you in that believes they are mostly OK.
They are flawed and stay flawed everyday. Get real Andreas.
I would appreciate it if you would not talk to me like to an idiot. I
do not
make excuses and even if I did it would not cause me any trouble. I am
not
in a dream, I fully understand the amount of work that is involved in
running government sites. I appreciate your concern for the
accessibility of
government sites and I agree with you on the point that inaccessible
sites
should be made accessible as soon as possible, but maintaining those
sites
is not as easy as running hereticpress.com.
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
