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. 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 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 faster and more efficient... I should point out that I don't use the W3C buttons on any sites, I try always to make sites comply with standards and to be functionally efficient. I wouldn't use any new rating or badge system either unless it was mandated. I think it would be amusing to see all the pretty but broken sites with no stars or 1 star though. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 it's a shame. Have you ever seen the output of MSN Search? An improvement, at least. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Trolling? :) Tip:(unrelated to this dead thread) I found this good reference: a list of commonly confused HTML special characters http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~ggbaker/reference/characters/#single Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan 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. 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 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 faster and more efficient... I should point out that I don't use the W3C buttons on any sites, I try always to make sites comply with standards and to be functionally efficient. I wouldn't use any new rating or badge system either unless it was mandated. I think it would be amusing to see all the pretty but broken sites with no stars or 1 star though. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 are probably hard/impossible to assess programatically. 5 stars is the best. And who would award the stars? Or are you thinking of a self-assessment scheme like the W3C? Hmm...let me think of the plethora of sites I've seen that claim WCAG AAA and are nowhere near even A (e.g. having alt=image on each image, thus passing automatic validation)... Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves (easier to maintain, faster, etc). We don't need yet another badge...imho of course. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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, faster, etc). We don't need yet another badge...imho of course. It's not yet another badge, it was a way to show compliance in a way that average people could relate to. As a response to the charge that the W3C buttons and validator links are too techy and people business people don't get it. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Ok. let's just take a step back and put this all in perspective: We already have a rating system with A - AAA conformence and the pretty badges to go with it. In Australia we have HREOC, and we know there's been a successful test case, which was widely publicised. Who really pays attention to the badges? Site users or other developers? And do they make the site more accessible, more usable? no. Is there any evidence to suggest that a site receives more traffic as a result of these badges? Do users actually seek out these sites? 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 faster and more efficient, we're good people (for the most part), who care about quality, accessibility, usability etc. surely 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 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 are probably hard/impossible to assess programatically. 5 stars is the best. And who would award the stars? Or are you thinking of a self-assessment scheme like the W3C? Hmm...let me think of the plethora of sites I've seen that claim WCAG AAA and are nowhere near even A (e.g. having alt=image on each image, thus passing automatic validation)... Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves (easier to maintain, faster, etc). We don't need yet another badge...imho of course. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 absolutely have to show everyone just how much you care about web standards. I assume that if you're a webdesigner (or webprogramer or some sort of company) you've got an informative page on your site where potensial clients may read the benefits of building webpages with standards in mind and why you are the right person/company to do so. What we do not need is another worthless button/badge to put on the webpages we (actually I mean you, because I don't put those buttons everywhere) make. No matter how we tell average people about web standards we can't do it with a button, they'll just go Huh?. They have no posibility to relate to it unless they read a 2000 words long article about it and truly understand why this is so important for some people. Even if they realize that web standards is important for some people, they might be too selfish or ignorant that they won't give a rats ass about it. Your clients need to hear that they'll save money and give users a better experience while viewing his/hers pages. They don't need to hear that they may or may not put a button on their page if they successfully make a website that passes XHTML validation. If you absolutely want to tell people about webstandards write to your local newspaper or something like that, just don't do it on the property of your clients. Regards Vincent Hasselgård Peter Williams wrote: 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, faster, etc). We don't need yet another badge...imho of course. It's not yet another badge, it was a way to show compliance in a way that average people could relate to. As a response to the charge that the W3C buttons and validator links are too techy and people business people don't get it. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
-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 practice and the right thing to do; it's faster and more efficient, we're good people (for the most part), who care about quality, accessibility, usability etc. surely you're not doing it for the elephant stamp? Could not have put it better. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 results should be left to speak for themselves. Tailor your argument to your client. Find examples in the same / similar industry that use standards well, and show them what they're missing. Mention incidents where lawsuits are brought against large companies for not providing an accessible annual report, or the legal issues of being an inaccessible government site. Show case studies of loading times, bandwidth savings, savings in design changes. Mention that this is the latest, greatest methodology in a gradually converging environment.Choose whichever of these - or other - arguments hold the most weight for your client. I fail to see the value in a 'badge of honor'. It's rather lazy, as i can see - you're placing an icon on someone's site, without discussing the argument for the page to be accessible, or standards-friendly.Moreover, a seal of approval on an ugly, poorly designed site will show the utter lack of value of this 'certification'; a site with no touted adherence to any standards that is clean, crisp, and easy to use will get far more client approval. So - let the results speak for themselves.On 12/7/05, Vincent Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The whole deal about putting buttons on websites we make for clients is in my humble opinion quite retarded. You're directing traffic straightout of your clients website and to a page where they go Wha? All of asudden you lost the user. Put those damn buttons on your own webpage if you absolutely have to show everyone just how much you care about webstandards.I assume that if you're a webdesigner (or webprogramer or some sort ofcompany) you've got an informative page on your site where potensial clients may read the benefits of building webpages with standards inmind and why you are the right person/company to do so.What we do not need is another worthless button/badge to put on thewebpages we (actually I mean you, because I don't put those buttons everywhere) make. No matter how we tell average people about webstandards we can't do it with a button, they'll just go Huh?. Theyhave no posibility to relate to it unless they read a 2000 words long article about it and truly understand why this is so important for somepeople. Even if they realize that web standards is important for somepeople, they might be too selfish or ignorant that they won't give a rats ass about it.Your clients need to hear that they'll save money and give users abetter experience while viewing his/hers pages. They don't need to hearthat they may or may not put a button on their page if they successfully make a website that passes XHTML validation.If you absolutely want to tell people about webstandards write to yourlocal newspaper or something like that, just don't do it on the propertyof your clients. RegardsVincent HasselgårdPeter Williams wrote:From: Patrick H. LaukePeter Williams wrote:1 star for content to markup ratio 1 star for validation of markup and cssLet the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sitestake over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves (easier to maintain, faster, etc). We don't need yet anotherbadge...imho of course.It's not yet another badge, it was a way to show compliancein a way that average people could relate to. As a response to the charge that the W3C buttons and validator links aretoo techy and people business people don't get it.**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 buttons across the web, and on the better sites. Hopefully a subliminal thing would happen where Jo(e) would slowly notice that a particular class of site has these buttons - the ones that are easier to use, that seem to be build *helpfully* rather than arrogantly, that get him to the point faster (because they don't have silly flash splash pages, etc). When Jo(e) is in business (s)he would eventually click on the button because (s)he wants to know *why* these sites are better, so his/her site can be like that too. Sure, XHTML/CSS/AAA buttons do that now, but the concept is to a) stay on the site and b) explain in Plain English (or appropriate local language) what the improvements the use of standards have brought to the site. Perhaps I worry too much :) Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane. Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 faster and more efficient... I should point out that I don't use the W3C buttons on any sites, I try always to make sites comply with standards and to be functionally efficient. I wouldn't use any new rating or badge system either unless it was mandated. I think it would be amusing to see all the pretty but broken sites with no stars or 1 star though. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 plan. My star rating system isn't intended to be a link away from the site. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 used for rating energy efficiency of applicances achieve that easier than the cryptic and unloved W3C buttons. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 to be somehow enforced for it to have value. Clearly regulation of anything internet related is problematic due to its distributed nature. I'm not going to come up with a whole plan for this, I was just thinking of a way that the relative goodness of sites could be simply communicated to a non tech audience. I think the scheme (at least the implementation and enforcement) would be very impractical in the current online environment. -- Peter Williams ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
So, given that the W3C buttons enforce compliancy by returning errors if the page isn't valid, what's wrong with them again? I actually sport mine with some pride and have had several visitors comment on the fact. Sure, some of their comments have been along the lines of what are they for? and what do they do? but this just provides me the opportunity to explain the virtues of accessibility to them first hand. Win/win, I reckon. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 12:37 PM To: wsg@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 where every fridge manufacturer would be completely free to put an official looking most energy efficient fridge EVER!!! actually generates energy and reduces the greenhouse effect on their products, and nobody would be able to do anything about it...leaving the customers more confused than anything else. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re.dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
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 just go and stick alt=image on every image in my site, so I can pass an automated checker). And passing automated validation for (X)HTML does not necessarily make a site better, as I've seen horribly non-semantic stuff that, on the surface, follows the syntax, but not the grammar, of the W3C spec (something like a triple nested table layout with lots of bolds and ems etc, which has merely been converted to XHTML by replacing table markup with lots of DIVS, b/i replaced with strong/em, and oodles of spans thrown in for good measure). -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
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 / import appliances for the Australian market are required to submit their products to an approved testing agency. So, it is effective because: - it's *enforced* (by law, I'll assume) by the government - there are *approved* testing agencies Once those two things are in place on the net, we can discuss stickers and badges... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Patrick's got a good point ... but isn't this conversation just about at its end? We seem to have two camps: those for and those against. How much more do we need to talk about this stuff??? R - Original Message - From: Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 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 / import appliances for the Australian market are required to submit their products to an approved testing agency. So, it is effective because: - it's *enforced* (by law, I'll assume) by the government - there are *approved* testing agencies Once those two things are in place on the net, we can discuss stickers and badges... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
