I was just thinking about that and I don't think google.com (or for that
matter - anything that company creates) would manage to get more than 1
star.
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 12:00 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
From: Herrod, Lisa
Who really pays attention to the badges?
Are the badges
On 12/7/05, Alan Trick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just thinking about that and I don't think google.com (or for that
matter - anything that company creates) would manage to get more than 1
star.
You just now realized that Google doesn't care at all about standards
compliance??? I think
Trick
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:36 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
I was just thinking about that and I don't think google.com (or for that
matter - anything that company creates) would manage to get more than 1
star
Peter Williams wrote:
1 star for content to markup ratio
1 star for validation of markup and css
These two should be able to be automated, just like the w3c validator.
1 star for accessibility
1 star for semantic markup
1 star for ? suggestions from the audience required.
These three
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Peter Williams wrote:
1 star for content to markup ratio
1 star for validation of markup and css
Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites
take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves
(easier to maintain,
you're not doing it for the elephant stamp?
lisa
-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: 7/12/05 9:37
Subject: Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Peter Williams wrote:
1 star for content to markup ratio
1 star
Personally, I don't think the logos Do It - they are too techie and
Joe Average doesn't see what they mean.
i like the approach of this site that uses
text links(footer) in the overal style of the site
http://www.monc.se/work/
**
The
The whole deal about putting buttons on websites we make for clients is
in my humble opinion quite retarded. You're directing traffic straight
out of your clients website and to a page where they go Wha? All of a
sudden you lost the user. Put those damn buttons on your own webpage if
you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herrod, Lisa
Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 10:15 AM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
We work this way because it's best
I think there is still a mentality of any of those awards/certified/compliant buttons just being a click stealer.Remember those web award badges you could stick on your site with pride in the early 90's - until you realised that it was only there to get users to click off your site?
I believe the
On 07/12/2005, at 9:14 AM, Herrod, Lisa wrote:
We already have a rating system with A - AAA conformence and the
pretty
badges to go with it.
It probably is 'just another button scheme' (hey, it was 6:30 in the
morning!) but the concept was for Joe Average to start seeing these
similar
From: Herrod, Lisa
Who really pays attention to the badges?
Are the badges useful? really? surely an accessibility page
on the site is more informative and helpful/useful/clear
to those who are interested.
We work this way because it's best practice and the right
thing to do; it's
From: Vincent Johansen
The whole deal about putting buttons on websites we make for
clients is in my humble opinion quite retarded. You're
directing traffic straight out of your clients website
I'm not sure I'd word it quite that way, but I agree that
sending visitors away isn't a good
From: Andreas Boehmer
From: Herrod, Lisa
surely you're not doing it for the elephant stamp?
Could not have put it better.
Agreed, but wasn't this all started by someone wanting a way
to communicate the goodness of standards compliant sites to
a lay audience?
Wouldn't a scheme like that
From: Patrick H. Lauke
But the question remains: who awards these stars? Self-accreditation
would obviously be futile. And who monitors that stars are rightly
awarded, and not used by sites that don't meet the criteria? Hey, if
there's full-time jobs being created here, I'm in...
It has
@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Peter Williams wrote:
It has to be somehow enforced for it to have value.
And as that's not going to happen, the star rating will be meaningless.
To get back to the energy efficiency analogy, it's a situation
Paul Noone wrote:
So, given that the W3C buttons enforce compliancy by returning errors if the
page isn't valid, what's wrong with them again?
WCAG buttons don't link to any validator. And, of course, accessibility
cannot be checked in any satisfactory way without *human* testing (let
me
Lea de Groot wrote:
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/con3.html
Ugly stickers; Very effective program.
From http://www.energyrating.gov.au/background.html
Manufacturers who produce / import appliances for the Australian market
are required to submit their products to an approved testing
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Lea de Groot wrote:
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/con3.html
Ugly stickers; Very effective program.
From http://www.energyrating.gov.au/background.html
Manufacturers who produce
19 matches
Mail list logo
