Re: [WSG] validation logos - kitemarks?
I like that idea. This is kind of off topic but to you think that validation logos should open in a new window, or not. Opening in a new window keeps people from leaving the site, but popups are anoying and generally frowned upon. designer wrote: - Original Message - From: Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] validation logos - kitemarks? I think most people put validation logos on their sites for peers. This is often just vanity/showing off. However other web developers do click these logos and report back if they find problems, so they can have their benefits. I know, I know, we should al make sure our pages validate when they have been changes, but sometimes it's easy to forget, especially as most of the time it's not relay mission critical. Andy Budd I have today knocked up a 'logo' which links to this group's spiel about standards, and put it on my business web site. Just an experiment, of course. . . If you want to see it, go to the link in my signature (below), pick the html version and it's on the opening page. Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] validation logos - kitemarks?
Alan Trick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:55 AM said: This is kind of off topic but to you think that validation logos should open in a new window, or not. Opening in a new window keeps people from leaving the site, but popups are anoying and generally frowned upon. Pop ups are different from a link opening in a new window once clicked. Chris. ** 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] validation logos - kitemarks?
I think most people put validation logos on their sites for peers. This is often just vanity/showing off. However other web developers do click these logos and report back if they find problems, so they can have their benefits. I know, I know, we should al make sure our pages validate when they have been changes, but sometimes it's easy to forget, especially as most of the time it's not relay mission critical. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.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] validation logos - kitemarks?
- Original Message - From: Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] validation logos - kitemarks? I think most people put validation logos on their sites for peers. This is often just vanity/showing off. However other web developers do click these logos and report back if they find problems, so they can have their benefits. I know, I know, we should al make sure our pages validate when they have been changes, but sometimes it's easy to forget, especially as most of the time it's not relay mission critical. Andy Budd I have today knocked up a 'logo' which links to this group's spiel about standards, and put it on my business web site. Just an experiment, of course. . . If you want to see it, go to the link in my signature (below), pick the html version and it's on the opening page. Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] validation logos - kitemarks?
An old chestnut. Standards badging is largely irrelevant to the client as they have no knowledge of or likely interest in the delivery mechanisms and markup/coding involved in development of a web presence. Neither too has the general public. That's point 1: fair ignorance of development. Since CSS, DTD markup compliance or WAI accessibility level badges are simply markers to recommendations and not Kite marks (like Corgi for British gas fitters, a recognised accreditation) they have no bearing on accountability or fitness for purpose, and their adoption is, at best, an indication that developers and, possibly, clients recognise best practice in the industry. That's point 2: no accountability in law or to a peer group. Where badging does kick in and I believe justifiably so is with inter-industry peer pressure and as a prompt for unclued wannabe developers to investigate further. A couple of years ago I had no idea what web standards or accessibility were about; I now know better. Part of the trigger was the use of badges on certain sites I happened upon. To the initiated, badges are often looked upon with smug derision; we don't need 'em cuz we're cool. Ivory tower syndrome. Don't get smug. I badge because I want fledgling developers to ask questions of and be a party to standards development. These are the guys we need to have commit to standards-compliant accessible development, as we do their tutors in educational establishments. A top down approach to development, a commitment by governments to sanction businesses who do not take 'reasonable efforts' to ensure their sites are accessible is a welcome - though largely toothless - effort towards recognising a moral requirement toward the rights of impaired web users. But until these sanctions are imposed with a fervour, which they won't because of the legal minefield involved when challenging *recommendations* not development *standards* (and the woolliness of the legislation), it's necessary to adopt a bottom up, critical mass approach. Until we, as an industry, are accredited with an internationally recognised set of development standards, which will mean formal exams toward formal qualifications, the best we can expect is to have wannabe developers look to us for guidance. That can start with a couple of badges on a site. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.visidigm.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.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] validation logos - kitemarks?
Hi all, I think that basically we all agree in principle. However, to take a couple of points: [1] Patrick's : It's a bit like plastering a nice big sticker on a new building saying built with bob's special concrete mix. As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers do not need to know this sort of stuff...they couldn't care less. Is that true? I would have thought that any responsible client of the builder would like to know that building regs were adhered to. (i.e., 'standards' are our 'building regulations' :-) Surely? Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard. Absolutely! Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance? Yep! There's the rub! [2] Kim: Maybe the stickers wont mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That way the stickers could turn into a kind off quality stamp in the long run. My (new) feelings exactly. [3] Kornel: I like that idea... So who (which one of us) is going to do it then? :-) [4] Mike: A nice summary, thank you. Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] validation logos - kitemarks?
designer wrote: [1] Do folk regard the w3c validation logos in much the same way that other industries regard the kitemark? I think an important thing to remember here is: who are these logos for? Sure, you get the peer recognition, but do consumers and end users *really* care about whether or not your site is XHTML 1.0 Strict compliant? I'd posit that no, for the most part, users will come to your site to get a service or information. It's a bit like plastering a nice big sticker on a new building saying built with bob's special concrete mix. As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers do not need to know this sort of stuff...they couldn't care less. [2] if not, is this because they aren't 'official' ? Well, the kitemarks assure consumers that their products won't just blow up or catch fire or something. With a web site, it really has no meaning. A site can be fully W3C compliant and still be unfit for purpose. Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard. [3] Have there been any attempts to get an official kitemark (or kitemarks) for valid, accessible sites? Let's not confuse validation with accessibility. There is a certain benefit to advertising (or otherwise making clear) that a site has made steps towards being accessible...although I'd argue that even then this sort of thing should be invisible, i.e.: a user with certain access needs should realise a site is accessible by actually using it, and not because he/she is being told. It seems to me that a 'proper' kitemark would really be an incentive for folk to use standards. Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance? -- 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 ** 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] validation logos - kitemarks?
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:41:24 -, designer wrote: [1] Do folk regard the w3c validation logos in much the same way that other industries regard the kitemark? Having never heard of a 'kitemark' I googled, and got this: http://www.bsi-global.com/Kitemark/index.xalter I assume the 'heart shaped' image is the 'kitemark'? Interesting point, but I think the difference is that a web site is in the use, not in the checks :( Lea ** 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] validation logos - kitemarks?
I'm not sure I agree when it comes to you shouldn't plaster a site with stickers for valid xhtml/css/508 etc. I guess we all have a common interest in higher awareness about standards. Maybe the stickers wont mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That way the stickers could turn into a kind off quality stamp in the long run. Just my humble opinion Kim Patrick H. Lauke wrote: designer wrote: [1] Do folk regard the w3c validation logos in much the same way that other industries regard the kitemark? I think an important thing to remember here is: who are these logos for? Sure, you get the peer recognition, but do consumers and end users *really* care about whether or not your site is XHTML 1.0 Strict compliant? I'd posit that no, for the most part, users will come to your site to get a service or information. It's a bit like plastering a nice big sticker on a new building saying built with bob's special concrete mix. As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers do not need to know this sort of stuff...they couldn't care less. [2] if not, is this because they aren't 'official' ? Well, the kitemarks assure consumers that their products won't just blow up or catch fire or something. With a web site, it really has no meaning. A site can be fully W3C compliant and still be unfit for purpose. Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard. [3] Have there been any attempts to get an official kitemark (or kitemarks) for valid, accessible sites? Let's not confuse validation with accessibility. There is a certain benefit to advertising (or otherwise making clear) that a site has made steps towards being accessible...although I'd argue that even then this sort of thing should be invisible, i.e.: a user with certain access needs should realise a site is accessible by actually using it, and not because he/she is being told. It seems to me that a 'proper' kitemark would really be an incentive for folk to use standards. Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance? ** 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] validation logos - kitemarks?
Kim Kruse wrote: I guess we all have a common interest in higher awareness about standards. But again, who are we targetting with these? Site visitors? Site owners? Our peer web developers? Maybe the stickers wont mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That way the stickers could turn into a kind off quality stamp in the long run. Validation does not equal quality. And looking at some of the high profile sites which have adopted standards (e.g. www.wired.com), I don't see any little stickers. Only if these big players started adding the stickers would it matter. 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 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
