Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Tim]

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 Ed

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[russ - maxdesign]

> They are flawed and stay flawed everyday. Get real Andreas.

Everyone please take a deep breath and calm down. We are all on the same
side. No need for friendly fire.  :)

Russ
(Admin - with flack jacket on)




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Jermayn Parker]

 Asfar as I know accessibility compliance is a requirement for every new govt
website project that is out for tender.


Yes that is right. I am involved at the moment of a redesign of a gov website 
and we have to create the website to cover level 3 standards...



The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -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]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Tim]

No Andreas

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Publishing/AustWeb.html

Australian gov websites are not tested for accessibility before they 
are launched.
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


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.

Tim



Tim
On 24/01/2007, at 12:29 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:


-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Smith
Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2007 12:13 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

Quoth Noah at 01/24/07 11:10...

Nothing bugs me more than a super-cool looking site
that shows off the ability of the artist who built it, yet

does nothing

for the idea, product or service it promotes.


Or, of course, breaks the law.  Accessibility is a legal
requirement in
Australia[1], although I get the impression that people keep
forgetting
this for some (convenient?) reason.


It is a law to implement accessibility into websites as much as 
reasonably

can be expected. That's a fine but important difference.

For example: you can reasonably expect government websites to be 
tested for
accessibility before they launch (which from this discussion, I take 
it, has
been done). However, I don't think you can reasonably expect for the 
website
to be tested every day just to make sure accessiblity wasn't somehow 
screwed

up by administrators of the CMS.

Even though I am a strong supporter of accesibility, you have to also 
keep
in mind that the idea of the AIMIA awards is to promote innovation in 
the
field of multimedia (not just Internet). So let's assume somebody has 
got a
great idea for a new online application. Let's also assume that this 
person
doesn't have a clue about accessibility or web standards. Nonetheless 
they
go ahead and build this amazing application which will change all of 
our
lifes. They put this application up for the AIMIA awards, as it is 
truly an

innovative site, great graphics, but for the moment it's accessibility
compliance is just shocking.

Shouldn't this person have the right to win an award for their work 
even

though the site does not comply with web standards or accessibility
guidelines? If AIMIA would restrict entries just on the basis that 
they are
not written to the liking of members of the WSG, they would miss out 
on a

large amount of innovative ideas.

Having said that, I agree that accessibility and usability should be
considered in the marking (probably even more so than it is at the 
moment)

and that of two sites that are evenly innovative the one that provides
accessibility and usability should be marked higher.




***
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]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Milosz A. Lodowski - New Media Designer]

>> It's really the only way to go if you want to deliver true value to your 
>> clients and provide forward-thinking results on the cutting edge. Anybody 
>> can make 

>> pretty pictures; true value is in making those designs do more than just 
>> look good.

>> Noah

Yep I know Noah, and after a small meeting (mostly about 5-7 sec.) of 1000 and 
one totaly similar and of course made with any rules of marketing virtues - 
sites..., without any feeling and individuality - I feel totaly sick of 
internet.

Similar, the same and remeberless...

Good way in uncustomized world..., 

Sometimes small "mistake" at the beginning of the race will make you a winner 
of innovation at the final end, I prefere more risky methods not academic ;)

Best Wishes
Milosz A. Lodowski
Art Director IceAge Design Squadron
Be our Ally, Hire our Guns...: www.iceagedesign.co.uk
London
Visit my PriveFolio: www.lodowski.eu - Be my Guest!
Mobile contact: +44 079.23.388.905  (UK)
  - Original Message - 
  From: Noah 
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists





  Quoting Matthew Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

  > Quoth Milosz A. Lodowski - New Media Designer at 01/24/07 11:32...
  >> But any design without art, feeling and emotions is trivial and boring
  >
  > We can be artistic and accessible, and need to prove it time and time
  > again to dispel the myth that "accessible is ugly".  Artists and
  > techies can work together - I've done it before AND we were still
  > talking to each other at the end ;-)
  >
  >
  > -- 
  > Matthew Smith
  > IT Consultancy & Web Application Development
  > Business: http://www.kbc.net.au/
  > Personal: http://www.smiffysplace.com/
  > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/smiffy
  >
  >
  > ***
  > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  > ***




  ***
  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  *** 

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2007 12:13 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists
> 
> Quoth Noah at 01/24/07 11:10...
> > Nothing bugs me more than a super-cool looking site 
> > that shows off the ability of the artist who built it, yet 
> does nothing 
> > for the idea, product or service it promotes.
> 
> Or, of course, breaks the law.  Accessibility is a legal 
> requirement in 
> Australia[1], although I get the impression that people keep 
> forgetting 
> this for some (convenient?) reason.

It is a law to implement accessibility into websites as much as reasonably
can be expected. That's a fine but important difference.

For example: you can reasonably expect government websites to be tested for
accessibility before they launch (which from this discussion, I take it, has
been done). However, I don't think you can reasonably expect for the website
to be tested every day just to make sure accessiblity wasn't somehow screwed
up by administrators of the CMS.

Even though I am a strong supporter of accesibility, you have to also keep
in mind that the idea of the AIMIA awards is to promote innovation in the
field of multimedia (not just Internet). So let's assume somebody has got a
great idea for a new online application. Let's also assume that this person
doesn't have a clue about accessibility or web standards. Nonetheless they
go ahead and build this amazing application which will change all of our
lifes. They put this application up for the AIMIA awards, as it is truly an
innovative site, great graphics, but for the moment it's accessibility
compliance is just shocking. 

Shouldn't this person have the right to win an award for their work even
though the site does not comply with web standards or accessibility
guidelines? If AIMIA would restrict entries just on the basis that they are
not written to the liking of members of the WSG, they would miss out on a
large amount of innovative ideas.

Having said that, I agree that accessibility and usability should be
considered in the marking (probably even more so than it is at the moment)
and that of two sites that are evenly innovative the one that provides
accessibility and usability should be marked higher.




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Noah]

  It's really the only way to go if you want to deliver true value to  
your clients and provide forward-thinking results on the cutting edge.  
Anybody can make pretty pictures; true value is in making those  
designs do more than just look good.


  Noah

Quoting Matthew Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Quoth Milosz A. Lodowski - New Media Designer at 01/24/07 11:32...

But any design without art, feeling and emotions is trivial and boring


We can be artistic and accessible, and need to prove it time and time
again to dispel the myth that "accessible is ugly".  Artists and
techies can work together - I've done it before AND we were still
talking to each other at the end ;-)


--
Matthew Smith
IT Consultancy & Web Application Development
Business: http://www.kbc.net.au/
Personal: http://www.smiffysplace.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/smiffy


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Milosz A. Lodowski - New Media Designer]

We can be artistic and accessible, and need to prove it time and time 
again to dispel the myth that "accessible is ugly".  Artists and techies 
can work together - I've done it before AND we were still talking to each 
other at the end ;-)



--
Matthew Smith


Of course Matthew - You've got right I prefere also artistic and accessible 
way of designing but when I have to choose the one and only - art is 
preffered...


Best Wishes

Milosz A. Lodowski
Art Director IceAge Design Squadron
Be our Ally, Hire our Guns...: www.iceagedesign.co.uk
London
Visit my PriveFolio: www.lodowski.eu - Be my Guest!
Mobile contact: +44 079.23.388.905  (UK)

Ice - e-Motional Design Expert
www.e-motionaldesign.com 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Matthew Smith]

Quoth Milosz A. Lodowski - New Media Designer at 01/24/07 11:32...

But any design without art, feeling and emotions is trivial and boring


We can be artistic and accessible, and need to prove it time and time 
again to dispel the myth that "accessible is ugly".  Artists and techies 
can work together - I've done it before AND we were still talking to 
each other at the end ;-)



--
Matthew Smith
IT Consultancy & Web Application Development
Business: http://www.kbc.net.au/
Personal: http://www.smiffysplace.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/smiffy


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Matthew Smith]

Quoth Noah at 01/24/07 11:10...
Nothing bugs me more than a super-cool looking site 
that shows off the ability of the artist who built it, yet does nothing 
for the idea, product or service it promotes.


Or, of course, breaks the law.  Accessibility is a legal requirement in 
Australia[1], although I get the impression that people keep forgetting 
this for some (convenient?) reason.


An accessibility check should be done before any site/company is even 
put in the running for any form of award, otherwise the organisers are - 
to put it bluntly - condoning crime.


Anyone failing the preliminary check could be given an accesibility 
information pack, a list of those who can help put things right.


Well, I'm off to ram-raid a supermarket, but it's OK, as I'll do it 
artistically ;-)


Cheers

M

1 - 



--
Matthew Smith
IT Consultancy & Web Application Development
Business: http://www.kbc.net.au/
Personal: http://www.smiffysplace.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/smiffy


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Milosz A. Lodowski - New Media Designer]

>> [...] Nothing bugs me more than a super-cool looking site that shows off the 
>> ability of the artist who built it, yet does nothing for the idea, product 
>> or service it promotes.

>> Art for art's sake is fantastic. Businesses need more.


>> Noah



But any design without art, feeling and emotions is trivial and boring...

Nowadays business needs more than technical support, think about it... 
sometimes...

Best Wishes
Milosz A. Lodowski
Art Director IceAge Design Squadron
Be our Ally, Hire our Guns...: www.iceagedesign.co.uk
London
Visit my PriveFolio: www.lodowski.eu - Be my Guest!
Mobile contact: +44 079.23.388.905  (UK)

Ice - e-Motional Design Expert
www.e-motionaldesign.com

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Noah]

  So indicative of the fine line between good design and good  
business, which often do not seem to take notice of each other until  
someone truly inspired gets a chance to make an impression on the  
delivery method. True online accessibility must also be visually  
appealing, while accounting for the original objectives of creating  
the media asset in the first place. Nothing bugs me more than a  
super-cool looking site that shows off the ability of the artist who  
built it, yet does nothing for the idea, product or service it promotes.


  Art for art's sake is fantastic. Businesses need more.

  Noah

  http://PerthWebDesigns.com

  Quoting Cheryl Lead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:



AIMIA is traditionally very multimedia-based rather than web-based,
which influences the types of entries, I think. In previous years it's
always been the Flash-driven and very flashy sites that have won over
the usable and accessible.



So true - I wanted the usable accessible sites to win in my category but
there weren't any there to judge!  I had to mark the flashy flash driven
sites the highest as there was no other choice.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Cheryl Lead]

AIMIA is traditionally very multimedia-based rather than web-based,
which influences the types of entries, I think. In previous years it's
always been the Flash-driven and very flashy sites that have won over
the usable and accessible.



So true - I wanted the usable accessible sites to win in my category but
there weren't any there to judge!  I had to mark the flashy flash driven
sites the highest as there was no other choice.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Kay Smoljak]

On 1/24/07, Cheryl Lead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I did write a lot of comments about it though so hopefully these comments
will make it back to the site owners. It's just such a shame that in 2006
(when the judging was done) the majority of companies are still so unaware
of accessibility standards and why they are important.


AIMIA is traditionally very multimedia-based rather than web-based,
which influences the types of entries, I think. In previous years it's
always been the Flash-driven and very flashy sites that have won over
the usable and accessible. It's also quite expensive to enter/be a
member, which means larger companies are more likely to be involved
than smaller shops.

The WA Web Awards (www.wawebawards.com.au) and the McFarlaine Prize
attract a different type of entry. For the WAWAs this year (I'm on the
committee), we're actually considering making standards compliance an
eligibility criterion rather than a judging criterion, given the
progress we've seen in the entries over the last two years.

Cheers,
K.

--
Kay Smoljak
business: www.cleverstarfish.com
standards: kay.zombiecoder.com
coldfusion: kay.smoljak.com
personal: goatlady.wordpress.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Lachlan Hardy]

What about W3C validation especially for business.gov.au 60 HTML
errors, meta tags, alt tags?



I haven't worked on the business.vic.gov.au site since early 2006, but at
the time it had almost perfect validation. There were some errors still
remaining in various pockets of content transferred to the new CMS, but in
general it was pretty good and certainly the home page and major section
pages validated - and they were still working on it. After all, validation
is a requirement for AA and they were determined to reach that

I was dismayed to look at the site yesterday and realise that someone had
replaced all the HTML META elements with XHTML ones, creating a large number
of errors for each page. It is a simple error, but it is one that indicates
that whoever is currently working on the site is probably not very informed
about HTML (or was just very rushed and assumed it was in XHTML!)

These things happen, Tim. It is the nature of the business. Websites are
transitory beasts, by design


I just completed a brief review of a small sample of AIMIA winners for

W3C validation, the few I tested did not validate!



I can't speak to the others, but it doesn't surprise me. As I said
previously, validation was in no way a requirement for the AIMIA awards



The McFarlane awards had better standards and expert judges. AIMIA
sites are better than the AGIMO .gov award winners!



I agree entirely. A lot of it comes down to the guidelines of the award
scheme and the varying expertise of the judges involved.  The McFarlane
prize had very specific guidelines that focused on standards and what most
people on this list probably consider to be 'best practice'. They also chose
their judges very carefully to be experts in their field

AIMIA has many many more sites to judge (from appearances, I have no actual
figures) and thus uses many many more judges. Without rigid judging
criteria, that is going to lead to varied results depending on varied
expertise of the judges. Some judges would obviously have a standards focus,
but many would not.

Even amongst those who are standards focused, expertise in varying areas is
going to differ. I'd certainly be happy to assess sites based on their code
whether it is HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML. I could evaluate their validation,
semantics, accessibility, elegance etc. But I would do less well (probably,
much less well) at evaluating a site in terms of specific usability, or
design. Those aren't my areas and I wouldn't judge them well

I'd suggest that the judges of the AIMIA awards would have similar
difficulties with some areas depending on their own particular expertise.
None of us are experts at everything

Lachlan Hardy


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Cheryl Lead]

I was actually a judge for the AIMIA awards and it was interesting going
through the judging criteria. Accessibility and Usability were judged
together, I think for a total of 15 or 20 points.

The first thing I looked at was the code on all the sites - out of the 5
sites I was judging, 4 of them were in Flash and the 5th one had a tables
based layout. I ended up marking all of them quite low but it was a
difficult measure when accessibility and usability were tied in together.
Yes, they were completely inaccessible but they were mostly usable so I
think it was not a useful measure.

I did write a lot of comments about it though so hopefully these comments
will make it back to the site owners. It's just such a shame that in 2006
(when the judging was done) the majority of companies are still so unaware
of accessibility standards and why they are important.


On 1/23/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hey, I've just looked at a dozen of these... And I know this is a web
standards list, but does it strike anyone that, more so than being full
of invalid code, these sites are just ugly, cumbersome and uninspired?
Forgetting coding standards and going on user experience, I wouldn't
rank any of these in the top 50 websites I've seen this month alone.

Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Barney Carroll]

Hey, I've just looked at a dozen of these... And I know this is a web 
standards list, but does it strike anyone that, more so than being full 
of invalid code, these sites are just ugly, cumbersome and uninspired? 
Forgetting coding standards and going on user experience, I wouldn't 
rank any of these in the top 50 websites I've seen this month alone.


Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Barney Carroll]

Katrina wrote:
I notice a very interesting phenomenon: CSS is widely used, but 
validation is not considered important, for either CSS or HTML, and I 
don't think accessibility has been given a high priority either amongst 
these pages.


Does anyone know why? Why have many of them made similar choices?


For a lot of people validity is difficult to grasp as an inherently 
useful thing.


What doesn't help is that when these people ask standards-loving 
communities why validation is so indispensable, the most enthusiastic 
advocates often don't have legitimate reasoning - e.g. the most common 
answer I get given is that Google penalises invalid pages in search ratings.


If you're primarily concerned with looks, and are making a website 
that's unlikely to be handled by anyone else without your express 
guidance (and that you understand completely, of course), valid coding 
will often be a bonus nicety rather than a pre-requisite.


As for valid CSS, I completely sympathise with those who reject it out 
of hand.


Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Tim]

But Jeffery, Lachan and Seona et al,

What about W3C validation especially for business.gov.au 60 HTML 
errors, meta tags, alt tags?
I just completed a brief review of a small sample of AIMIA winners for 
W3C validation, the few I tested did not validate!
The McFarlane awards had better standards and expert judges. AIMIA 
sites are better than the AGIMO .gov award winners!


http://www.hereticpress.com/Editorials/Editorial07.html#aimia

Tim

On 23/01/2007, at 2:27 PM, Jeffery Lowder - Accessibility 1st wrote:


Yeah I was involved in 2

http://www.business.vic.gov.au - I did the accessibility audits for 
this site for iFocus
http://www.actnow.com.au/ - I created the HTML templates for this site 
for Massive


With regard to accessibility not being an issue, it was a big issue 
for the Business Vic website and they went through many iterations 
until they had AA covered off, its been a while and I haven't looked 
at it recently but it did pass at the time.


The ActNow site did pass AA at the time but has since fallen away as 
sites can do when handed over for independent content editing.


I think it's a great sign that there aren't too many table based sites 
being create now - well done everyone!



Cheers

Jeffery Lowder
Accessibility 1st
p: +61 2 9570 9875 | m: 0419 350 760
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.accessibility1st.com.au



On 23/01/2007, at 1:53 PM, Katrina wrote:


Gday,

So is anybody on this list one of the finalists?
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=2649

I notice a very interesting phenomenon: CSS is widely used, but 
validation is not considered important, for either CSS or HTML, and I 
don't think accessibility has been given a high priority either 
amongst these pages.


Does anyone know why? Why have many of them made similar choices?

Kat


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
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]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Lachlan Hardy]

On 23/01/07, Jeffery Lowder - Accessibility 1st
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]

wrote:

http://www.business.vic.gov.au - I did the accessibility audits for
this site for iFocus



I worked on this one for iFocus too. My job was working out how to fix the
things that the accessibility testing found. As well as some issues with
delivering compliant HTML within the chosen CMS and, eventually, reworking
the templates to comply to AA (if I recall correctly, the initial build was
CSS-based, but not standards-compliant and certainly not AA). And various
other consulting as required ;)

Some components from the build were even discussed on this list in 2005. I
believe it was something to do with the Quicklinks module in the righthand
column. By default, it's an unordered list, but JS converts it into the
dropdown box that the client wanted


With regard to accessibility not being an issue, it was a big issue

for the Business Vic website and they went through many iterations
until they had AA covered off, its been a while and I haven't looked
at it recently but it did pass at the time.



It was a big, long, heavy-duty project and extremely focused on delivering a
standards-compliant accessible usable site. Unfortunately, semantics didn't
play as large a role in the business requirements as I would have liked, but
given the project constraints it came out pretty well, I think. It no longer
validates holus-bolus, but it's still close

As for the why's and how's of the list, Kat, you need to consider the
circumstances:

- Sites must be submitted for consideration, so there are always going to
be great sites out there that aren't included.
- The awards are intended to focus on 'digital content innovation'
- 15 points out of 100 are assigned to usability and accessibility
(although they do ask that websites conform to Priority 1, which I think is
a positive step if not as much as I'd like personally)
- 15 further points are assigned to technical expertise which looks like it
could cover standards-compliance, but in no way suggests it

(details from http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=912)

Rightly or wrongly, the AIMIA awards are not intended to focus on things
such as standards-compliance. Given the focus on innovation, some would
argue that this is a good thing. Personally, I'm glad that there is at least
some consideration given to accessibility and usability

And, if you look at the judges list, you'll probably recognise the names of
at least some people from our community out there, fighting the good fight!
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=2567

And I'm spent

Lachlan Hardy


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Jeffery Lowder - Accessibility 1st]

Yeah I was involved in 2

http://www.business.vic.gov.au - I did the accessibility audits for  
this site for iFocus
http://www.actnow.com.au/ - I created the HTML templates for this  
site for Massive


With regard to accessibility not being an issue, it was a big issue  
for the Business Vic website and they went through many iterations  
until they had AA covered off, its been a while and I haven't looked  
at it recently but it did pass at the time.


The ActNow site did pass AA at the time but has since fallen away as  
sites can do when handed over for independent content editing.


I think it's a great sign that there aren't too many table based  
sites being create now - well done everyone!



Cheers

Jeffery Lowder
Accessibility 1st
p: +61 2 9570 9875 | m: 0419 350 760
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.accessibility1st.com.au



On 23/01/2007, at 1:53 PM, Katrina wrote:


Gday,

So is anybody on this list one of the finalists?
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=2649

I notice a very interesting phenomenon: CSS is widely used, but  
validation is not considered important, for either CSS or HTML, and  
I don't think accessibility has been given a high priority either  
amongst these pages.


Does anyone know why? Why have many of them made similar choices?

Kat


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Seona Bellamy]

I've just started working for the company responsible for one fo the
finalists (the Pioneer site). I've only been here a week, though, so I can't
take any kudos for it other than vicarious ones. ;)

I have to admit, I've noticed that very thing about the sites that I've been
playing with here over the past week. I think part of it is due to the CMS
we're using for most of the sites - from what I can tell, it doesn't put out
clean code at all, so I guess no one really bothers validating what they
build around it because the whole thing isn't going to validate anyway.
Still, since they built the CMS in the first place it's a bit sad that they
didn't spend more time and effort on making it valid.

Maybe I can start having an influence on this sort of thing on upcoming
projects, but it's certainly too late for any of the behemoths already in
production. *sigh*

Cheers,

Seona.

On 23/01/07, Katrina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Gday,

So is anybody on this list one of the finalists?
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=2649

I notice a very interesting phenomenon: CSS is widely used, but
validation is not considered important, for either CSS or HTML, and I
don't think accessibility has been given a high priority either amongst
these pages.

Does anyone know why? Why have many of them made similar choices?

Kat


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Samuel Richardson]

 
It's interesting that under the Childrens section, Click Suite has picked up
awards for both Moa and Survivor. Both produced by Click Suite (an NZ
agency) and Te Papa (the New Zealand museum)

This is for the Australian Interactive Media Awards!

Is this another case of Australia trying to steal New Zealands best?

samuel


-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Katrina
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2007 1:53 PM
To: Web Standards Group
Subject: [WSG] AIMIA finalists

Gday,

So is anybody on this list one of the finalists?
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=2649

I notice a very interesting phenomenon: CSS is widely used, but 
validation is not considered important, for either CSS or HTML, and I 
don't think accessibility has been given a high priority either amongst 
these pages.

Does anyone know why? Why have many of them made similar choices?

Kat


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] AIMIA finalists

[Katrina]

Gday,

So is anybody on this list one of the finalists?
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=2649

I notice a very interesting phenomenon: CSS is widely used, but 
validation is not considered important, for either CSS or HTML, and I 
don't think accessibility has been given a high priority either amongst 
these pages.


Does anyone know why? Why have many of them made similar choices?

Kat


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***