Morning! I would gladly contribute to this initiative as well. I think it's a great idea.
/Denis On 2011-02-02, at 04:04, "John Foliot" <[email protected]> wrote: > So ya’ know Ian, this idea has some legs IMHO. Surely we have more friends > than pages? I add my +1 to this too. > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 5:07 PM > To: [email protected]; 'Danny Ayers' > Cc: 'Ian Jacobs'; 'Jonathan Chetwynd'; [email protected]; > [email protected]; 'Tim Berners-Lee' > Subject: 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: [email protected] / [email protected] > > > > > > > > De: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] En nombre de > Chris Beer > Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de febrero de 2011 0:14 > Para: Danny Ayers > CC: Ian Jacobs; Jonathan Chetwynd; [email protected]; [email protected]; > 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 <[email protected]> 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: > [email protected] TW: @zBeer LI: http://au.linkedin.com/in/zbeer
